Slashdot Mirror

Treason: BushCo lies to Congress and the world about flying Saudis out of the country immediately after 9/11/2001: New Details on F.B.I. Aid for Saudis After 9/11. Business as usual?

Making legal decisions based on scripture is a thorny issue... you'd probably be interested in this Colorado supreme court decision about the influence of the bible on a death penalty case (see here for news article and here for the court's opinion). I personally agree with the two dissenting justices, that the bible is a valid part of the individual person's moral code. Obviously, some would disagree on this issue - but it's an interesting subject for debate nonetheless.

It's been my personal experience that the most stereotypically "fundamental" Christians spend very little time reading the bible. Instead, they seem to feed off this warped socially conservative culture that has developed in American society. Jesus said that "the traditions of men nullify the word of God"... meaning that bad things happen when people supplant the actual word of God with their personal social or cultural traditions.

Most of what is labeled as "Christianity" in our modern culture simply isn't. I encourage you to look past all the goofy Jerry Falwell conservative stereotypes, and read the bible with a fresh perspective.

Read the book of 1st John in the new testament, and if you like that read the gospel of John. Those two books should give you a good understanding of what Christianity is all about, straight from the horse's mouth.

No reg. link.

Created through the New York Times Link Generator.

According to an article in yesterdays New York Times they are becoming on in the same.

here's the link about the FBI lying about shipping the Saudis out, thanks to a post deeply embedded somewhere else.

Registration, sadly, is required to read it.

This is the government that Americans trust with a significant portion of their retirement (Social Security), their railroad system (Amtrak), their postal system (USPS), education, law enforcement, and so on?

Bill Clinton lied (about sex w/ Monica), Bush Jr. lied (about WMDs in Iraq), the FBI lied in a secret court (to get wiretaps), the TSA lied (about protecting passenger privacy)... where does it end? (especially given the record of older agencies like the FBI and CIA lying to the public)

At least when Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers lie, their companies go bankrupt and they (at least in Ebbers case, most likely, though probably Ken Lay too eventually) go to prison.

But when government fails, what happens? Generally, nothing.

Mod me as troll/flamebait/overrated now for not promoting heavy doses of socialism (a necessary precondition for a large government to exist, so it can accomplish such abuses as this one)...

On the same note. Maybe prison in Sweden is not bad after all, or so we can learn from this article.

With such prisons he might as well trade a large money fine for a few years in the no-security prisons in Sweden.

(Is there wi-fi in these prisons, I wonder)

article here

"We live in an open society in which the concept of widespread knowledge is embraced as a goal of governance,"

Maybe in the overall big picture that is true but in the current political environment that statement is most certainly not true.

The current administration has done and continues to do everything in its power to suppress the flow of knowledge and information. Witness the recent suppression of an EPA-funded study conducted by Harvard which found that the recent changes to rules regarding mercury emissions from U.S. power plants would have health benefits 100 times as great as the EPA said it would .

Why the difference? Because according to the EPA and the Bush administration, more stringent controls would cost too much to industry compared to the public health benefit. Thus the analysis was stripped from the final report even though the findings of the analysis were used in a briefing by the EPA to the Washington Post on February 2nd.

Even outside the administration the flow of knowledge is under attack. Witness the current effort by the Florida legislature to pass legislation which would allow students to sue professors who the students claim were punishing the students for their beliefs. Included would be a situation when a professor challenges a student to explain their theories by using the Socratic method. In other words, simply state you have a belief but you don't have to provide any evidence or rationale to support this belief.

Let us not forget the fiasco in my home state where Intelligent Design is being taught alongside Darwinian Evolution as a valid scientfic theory.

Along those same lines, this very site posted a story yesterday about some IMAX theaters not showing a film because it contained references to evolution.

While Kahles overall sentiment is correct the current political environment is not conducive to the flow of knowledge and won't be for a fairly substantial time.

1. If you don't want a search engine spidering your pictures and news stories, don't put them on the web. If AFP were paper only, Google could not violate their copyright. It saves AFP money to stay offline.
2. If AFP decides to pay to go online to make money, they should know the rules of the Internet. First rule about search engines like Google: robots.txt. If they don't want Google to spider them, any half-decent Internet expert they hire would be able to keep Google out of their webspace in the time it takes to type

   User-agent: *
   Disallow: /

   AFP didn't do their homework, and that's a poor way to protect any investment.

3. Speaking of investments, even if they somehow managed to stay completely ignorant of search engine operation, anyone who wants to sell something online needs to protect it. This is as easy as adding password accounts. Other online news services do just that.
4. Copyright protects the rights of authors so that they can make money. Why should we give them the benefit of governmental protection when it's obvious they don't care about protecting the content themselves enough to use basic measures to do so?

To sum up: AFP, of their own volition, paid to get on the web. They completely ignored RFCs. They ignored standard practices by established companies in their business sector. They wait until $17M in damages accrue, which doesn't happen overnight. Only then do they cry foul, and sue using copyright law to protect something they won't protect themselves when they have the chance. If you were a judge, which way would you rule?

Notice that I didn't even need to talk about fair use rights. France doesn't use the US Constitution. My arguments are purely economic, and I'm fairly sure the French understand money. If any lawyers at Google are reading this, please fight this suit. AFP are being unreasonable, and need to be taught a lesson.

You sure?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/technology/19wif i.html?ex=1268888400&en=51d90e7518bba5d6&ei=5090&p artner=rssuserland

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/technology/19wif i.html?ex=1268888400&en=51d90e7518bba5d6&ei=5090&p artner=rssuserland/

You know what else is fuel efficient (and cheap and very convenient and fun)? Go-peds, those engine-powered scooters. I had one and it got upwards of 100 miles per gallon, and it could do 33mph which is nothing to sneeze at. If the efficiency of these fuel-cell bikes grabs your attention, go grab yourself a go-ped or a minibike on eBay for less than $200. Get one before your state bans them.

I was actually really surprised when the New York Times article about DivX enabled high definition capability wasn't slashdotten long ago when the New York Times touted a third possible competitor in the High Definition consumer electronic device market for High Definition viability. You can find the article here.

(sorry, this does require a free subscription)

IO-Data offers their DivX HD Certified AvelLinkplayer2 for around US $250.00 and is quite capable and you can get it NOW. There should be more players on the way - from my understanding, Sigma Designs EM8620L Chips are more than capable of DivX High Definition. I also believe KiSS has showed off a similar DivX High Definition Video-On-Demand player at CeBIT. (scroll down, you'll see it).

I figured out (rather quickly) how to upgrade from FC2 to FC3 using YUM only. No CDs or DVDs were burned making this move. I can see why you might want to "reinstall" from time to time, but it really doesn't appear necessary. Oh, regarding your tagline: don't you feel rather silly now that we KNOW Saddam was developing WMDs? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/mi ddleeast/13loot.html?8bl

In order to defeat an insurgent force, US forces must be able to separate insurgents from the population. At the same time, US forces must conduct themselves in a manner that enables them to maintain popular domestic support. Excessive or indiscriminant use of force is likely to alienate the local populace, thereby increasing support for insurgent forces. (From Section 2-66 -- Rules of Engagement.)

Judicious application of the minimum destruction concept [is recommended] in view of the overriding requirements to minimize alienating the population. (For example, bringing artillery or air power to bear on a village from which sniper fire was received may neutralize insurgent action but will alienate the civilian population as a result of casualties among noncombatants.) (From Section 3.43 -- Defensive Operations.)

Infrastructure protection and repair/rehabilitation (for example, electrical power and water, electrical pole repair teams) are critical both for improving the populations' physical well-being as well as for the positive psychological effect it creates. The electrical grid is a good confidence target (very visible), and there is no effect equivalent to the lights going out. "Turning on the lights" in Port-au-Prince contributed to reducing criminal activity (as measured by the murder rate) by about 40 percent in a two-month period (observed in Haiti). (From Section C-37 - Lessons Observed During Past Operations.)

The full extent of the damage inflicted by American bombs, tanks and artillery is only now becoming apparent. The number of buildings destroyed in the fighting is far higher than 200, the figure released last week by the Iraqi prime minister, Ayad Allawi, engineers and commanders say. The city's power lines are so badly damaged that in most of the city, they will have to be ripped out and rebuilt from scratch - a project that will take six months to a year, American engineers say. Damage to the city's water and sewer pipes, already badly corroded before the invasion, is milder but will also take months to repair.

You said that you don't see how one could fight insurents without resorting to torture. The Shiite Iraqis are handling the terrorist attacks quite well, maybe we should take a lesson from them. When someone suicide bombed their mosque, they didn't go firing indiscriminately into Sunni areas, knowing that would only escalate the conflict. Instead, they're working with the Iraqi national guard to step up security and patrols.

Second, the statement about "propaganda" is pretty sad. I'm not going to even entertain responding to it. You're obviously paranoid and think that money actually goes into duping the public. Get real! These people have lives outside of work too.

The sad thing is that you're obviously so ravingly blinkered that you can't even notice month's old news reported in very mainstream media, e.g. The New York Times which has detailed the spending of tax dollars on propaganda for DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION by exactly those people:

In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.

So, here's a thought experiment for you to try: how about you assume that you're totally wrong, that there is propaganda being produced by the government, by people in the Defense Department (DOD) and that you are a blinkered bigot that has wilfully ignored the evidence. Acting on this premise do a Google search, spend some time reading and then come back and tell us to "get real".

Things ARE going to get worse, as Europe as decided a little while ago that the name chocolate would be allowed for products containing other vegetal oils than cocoa butter (i.e. soy bean, etc). Until then, in some countries chocolate HAD to contain only cocoa butter.

In reaction, Belgium has created a new label "Ambao" which identifies chocolates containing only cocoa butter. I suppose (and hope) that similar initiatives have been taken in other countries where chocolate is taken seriously ;-)

See this article for details...

The NY Times had a great article yesterday on how the Bush administration is doing everything it can to manipulate the media and public opinion through carefully managed propogada campaigns. So color me surprised when the Justice Department can't find any abuses of the PATRIOT act that just happen to give the DOJ incredible Orwellian powers.

As with software, there's ambiguity in the meaning of the English word "free". Most of the discussion here is focussing on "free as in beer". Price is important to many, natually enough, not least because of the intrusion required online to make sure you've paid.

But I suspect a lot of /.ers are more concerned with "free as in speech". This is often, but not always, connected to the pricing. "Free" newspapers are owned by businesses whose reason for publishing is to make money: if you're not paying upfront for the paper, then all their revenue is coming from ads, and they thererefore have even more need to keep their editorial policy in line with their advertisers. It's already been pointed out above that supposedly "independent" news media like the BBC aren't all that independent: running a news site really well costs money, and the BBC is still reliant on an increasingly pushy and spin-loving UK government to pay its bills.

Having a no-charge business model also puts pressure on costs, and makes getting cheap or "free" (i.e. no-cost) content all the more attractive. The independence of the reporting can suffer as a result. The NYT has coincidentally just run a story about how the White House is pushing pro-government "news" stories to the networks, paid for by the taxpayer, which don't always clue the viewer who produced them. This isn't necessarily a conspiracy, it's just "good business". The same conflict of interest exists in a corporate-owned newspaper, online or hardcopy.

I think many people attribute a sense of mission to their news provider. Some people think FOX tells it "fair and balanced", and watch it for that reason. Good for them. I personally would rather watch Bullwinkle re-runs than FOX News, but that's beside the point. Consciously or unconsciously, a lot of people believe that their favorite news provider is mostly "telling the truth" about what's going on in the world, and are unable or unwilling to see conflicts of interest, especially when they're unaware of how their favorite news provider's business model works. I simply don't believe that a GE-owned news business is always going to tell the truth about what GE gets up to.

The one large-scale attempt that I'm aware of to build a global news network which is free both of corporate and government control is Indymedia. Their quality varies anywhere from excellent first-hand reporting, to the truly awful. Freedom is like that: you have the freedom to write something which some people really want to hear, and other people really hate. The US and some European govts have been cracking down on Indymedia lately, which doesn't bode well for freedom of speech. This is true even if you don't like Indymedia's anarchist/left-wing editorial policy: people have the right to report the news as they see it. You equally have a right to redress if lies are told about you.

So the Indymedia model is far from perfect. How then can an international news network operate which is free of both corporate and government interference? If 100% free-as-in-freedom news isn't possible without a regular revenue stream, then how do you at least maximize the freedom AND the quality of the content?

PS: BugMeNot helps you skirt around that "free" registration with the NYT.

there have been exactly *zero* successful prosecutions of terrorists in the USA under this act--so, was it really worth it, or even necessary to pass this bill? what *good* has it done? this is just a classic example of 'lowering expectations'...

and of course, the Bush disinformation machine continues cranking at high speed--even the network news is delivered prepacked and 'on message': Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News

so forgive me if i don't breathe a sigh of relief about this 'news'...

Reg-free link

How about beating inmates to death? Is that a problem?

This was reported a couple of days ago in the new york times. The links in the Times article show pictures of the vehicles and talk about touch pad controls and an assignable USB control. The cars include a MacNova, MacJeep and soon a MacCamino. Personally, I'd prefer a MacPorsche911.

Registration free link
Generated using the New York Times Link Generator.

Businesses fail. Business plans fail. According to the Standish Group, 80% of software projects fail. Granting credit isn't about "getting all the money back." It's an investment by the banks. It's risk management. Using your logic, I should be able to sue a company in which I own stock if its value drops.

have a business loan I personally signed for in order to upfit my first office. You'd better believe I'm working my ass off to make sure I can pay for it

Good! I'm happy for you! I'm just hoping that nothing goes wrong for you (like getting sick, or injured or something). Slightly more than 50% of the bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. (Closer to 46% when you cut out the addiction related problems).

What they should have really "reformed" were the homestead acts in states like Texas and Florida that let millionaires keep their mansions in bankruptcy. This bill also does nothing to punish business that abuse bankruptcy that destroy workers jobs, pensions, and health benefits.

Actually, judges have even more leeway now in certain cases because of recent Supreme Court rulings which make previous guidelines merely advisory. See http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/national/18sente ncing.html Besides, I think my friend has moved out of the country, so the point is moot :-)

Yes, like white supremacist groups inciting their members to murder judges and their families?

We all value free speech but the rest of the world thinks the US takes free speech too far (and remember, the US doesn't have the best record for civil liberties for non-whites, or racial harmony, so preaching that free speech trumps everything else seems, well strange).

It matters not whether bloggers are journalists. Judges can compel journalists (or "journalists") to reveal their sources for a variety of reasons, most pertinent being if a crime has been committed, gathering evidence for a civil trial or any other reason for which a judge decides to subpoena a journalist.

What with journalistic ethics taking a number of hits over the past few years (Jayson Blair, Dan Rather, "Jeff Gannon", et al) - and, Mac rumor "blogs" aside, the mainstream media is beginning to pay heed to bloggers at all levels of the news cycle. Just recently Garrett Graf, who runs the political blog FishbowlDC, was granted access to the White House Press Briefing - the same thing Guckert/Gannon was maligned for attending without any "real" credentials.

Graf is the former editor of the Harvard Crimson, but he's not a journalist in the traditional sense, and he represents the first "legit" blogger allowed into the press gaggle. I'd say that's a very positive sign.

Bush isn't even that far to the right in American politics, I suggest you look up the work of Pat Buchanan.

That's like saying Hitler wasn't that bad of a tyrant and suggesting that we read up on Stalin. Submitting arguments to the Supreme Court for keeping god in the Pledge of Allegiance comes darn close to forced prayer in schools. Creating amendments against gays is definitely legislating his own religion. Read more on Bush's views here.

Hmmm... RDX explosives. Where have I heard of that before? Oh yeah, it was when 380 tons of the stuff went missing from a US-"controlled" bunker in Iraq.

NY Times link

Enjoy!

-Rick

However, in the HK-itunes case being discussed in the main thread, I'm more inclined to think that it's just a blatant grab for money.
Did anyone notice the "investors" link that was on the pat-rights site? Seems a little strange that they are so willing to collect investors' money and offer "staggaring" returns.

My guess is that someone in HK has been watching the legal circus surrounding software patents and finally found something that has half a chance of standing up in court and now can market it as an investment vehicle.

China has a patent system. It's just that it's a patent system with Chinese characteristics For one thing, prior art isn't considered. If a Chinese company has the cash and the connections, they can copy a foreign invention and get a patent on it.

Yes, and how long do you think that your average numbskull that is badmouthing his employers on a blog is likely to last once his employers found out. Especially when you consider that the employer has complete access to the employee's computer, proxy logs, and whatever else they need.

So you give your employer unfettered access to your home computer? Do you let them read your mail, too? At least one person this article is talking about (on CNN, not the slashdot summary) had their blog hosted on web space that they paid for out of their own pocket, and presumably they were using their own machine to post to it, not their employer's equipment.

If you don't like your employers and your morale is so bad that you are mouthing off on a public blog then chances are good that you are doing a piss-poor job.

Way to blame the victim. Isn't it just possible that someone who works hard and produces well and gets great performance reviews, etc etc, doesn't like their employers and has terrible morale, but has too much personal pride to let it affect the quality of their work? I know dozens of people in this situation; they work hard, they continually get screwed by their employers, but continue to work hard in the hopes that they can at least acheive some measure of personal satisfaction while they scour the job listings for a job that sucks less.

As far as I can tell, this is just another way for big business to control what their employees do every minute of their lives. Unsatisfied with monitoring their web access, reading their email, testing their urine, and requiring many to carry a pager 24/7 without additional compensation, companies are starting to screen their employees for legal activities during off-work hours, such as tobacco usage(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?r es=F60613FF345F0C7B8CDDAB0894DD404482). What's next? Filtering employees' TV signals for competitors' advertising? Requiring spyware on employees' home personal computers that forwards all email to HR for evaluation? GPS transmitters implanted under the skin?

Granted, this is bordering on tinfoil-hat territory, but seriously, where does it end?

The examples may be wrong, but I'm not exactly pulling them out of my ass...

From the New York Times: "City officials envision a seamless mesh of broadband signals that will enable the police to download mug shots as they race to crime scenes in their patrol cars, allow truck drivers to maintain Internet access to inventories as they roam the city, and perhaps most important, let students and low-income residents get on the net."

And there's Odeo about which there was a New York Times Article

The nytimes's Public Editor had an interesting piece about anonymous sources a while back:

http://query.nytimes.com/search/article-printpage. html?res=9907EFD61230F930A25755C0A9629C8B63

"Electricians from Lutsk may be innocent bystanders, but most anonymous sources are not. They have many different motivations, but I doubt we'll ever see the paper cite what must be the most common one: deniability. If your name isn't attached to something that turns out to be wrong or embarrassing, you never have to take the heat for it."

Journalists' sources are, of course, *not* protected when laws have been broken, as seen in these
cases. The obstructing journalists in question weren't protected, either.

If a New York Times reporter had received the same information as the bloggers and reported it, he would not have to reveal his source. Journalists are protected in that regard.

Think again..

This isn't entirely about free internet access though...

From the New York Times: "City officials envision a seamless mesh of broadband signals that will enable the police to download mug shots as they race to crime scenes in their patrol cars, allow truck drivers to maintain Internet access to inventories as they roam the city, and perhaps most important, let students and low-income residents get on the net." The other good quote from this article: "'Government doesn't do service well,' said Eric Rabe, vice president for public relations for Verizon."

right. because Verizon DOES do service well. oh, the irony.

This Wired article has some great insight into the difficulty of licensing the music that occurs, even fleetingly, in TV shows. David Pogue also commented on this in his NY Times blog recently. He was told by a TV producer that segments that air only once, such as news shows, couldn't be offered for download because of the licensing nightmare to clear every visual and audio element of the broadcast that may have licensing restrictions. These issues might not be insurmountable but they sure represent a huge hurdle for an industry that's not inclined to embrace the Internet as a distribution method in the first place.

You know, instead of bleating on about loss of privacy from showing an ID, why don't you start asking questions about your government using arbitrary arrest and torture? Isn't that more important? Perhaps not to you, because you don't think it'll ever happen to you, just to them?

If the government want to track you, they can do so easily through your bank statements/payments, your phone calls, your internet usage, your garbage, your friends etc etc. They certainly don't need an ID card. But most likely the govt. couldn't care less about you 'mr wolf'. The problem is not the methods used to track (of which there are many, that's what governements do), but for what reasons they should be allowed to track you. More fundamentally there are questions about freedom which are *not* being asked in the US - freedom from torture and detention without trial.

If you want to descend to anthropomorphic name-calling you sir, are an ostrich. Wake up and start asking the questions that matter.

The issue of election integrity is bigger than the Kerry Bush race. For the first time in the history of this democracy, we are trusting electronic tabulating machines to count votes in a presidential race. Machines which reknown computer scientists and cryptologists have proven to be insecure and untrustworthy.

In addition to being insecure and untrustworthy these machines left no "paper trail", no way of verifying the machine's count in a recount. When you have no paper trail, the only tool to investigate the integrity of a machine count is that of statistics, as Berkeley researchers were forced to rely upon when they concluded that voting irregularities lead them to believe 260,000 votes were invalidly awarded to Bush. In fact when 4,258 votes were awarded by a Diebold machine to Bush in Franklin County, Ohio we only knew that result had to be wrong because only 638 voters had casted ballots. Unfortunately this wasn't an isolated event as Diebold has stirred a string of such voting irregularities. According to Bob Fitrakis:

Due to computer flaws and vote shifting, there were numerous reports across Ohio of extremely troublesome electronic errors during the voting process and in the counting. In Youngstown, there were more than two-dozen Election Day reports of machines that switched or shifted on-screen displays of a vote for Kerry to a vote for Bush. In Cleveland, there were three precincts in which minor third-party candidates received 86, 92 and 98 percent of the vote respectively, an outcome completely out of synch with the rest of the state (a similar thing occurred during the contested election in Florida, 2000). This class of error points to more than machine malfunction, suggesting instead that votes are being electronically shifted from one candidate to another in the voting and counting stage.

All reported errors favored Bush over Kerry.

Which leads us to question the integrity of the election especially when the exit polls were so clearly in favor of Kerry.

The CEO of Diebold has made no attempt to hide his support for Bush. Ironically, he has publically stated that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year". Later he stated it was a mistake to have said that, he meant it as an American, not as the CEO of a corporation that was contracted to count votes in Ohio. The CEO however isn't the only one to be painted with a big brush of suspicious, as at least five convicted felons secured management positions in his company. One of which served time in a Washington state correctional facility for stealing money and tampering with computer files in a scheme that "involved a high degree of sophistication and planning."

In my response I have analyzed the integrity of the Ohio election through the prisim of electronic voting, others have made other arguments regarding why they think an investigation is warranted as I can assure you the problems with Diebold is not limited to Ohio nor is electronic voting the only "irregularity" in Ohio [1] [2]

Paul03244's Recent Submissions
Title Datestamp
Gates Urges Governors to Improve High Schools Sunday February 27, @01:49AM Rejected


Only I also submitted more analysis & links to a more substantive NY Times article, the National Governors Association website, and the text of Gates NGA speech

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/technology/circu its/24popp.html?ex=1266987600&en=22bde7cc89dd70a5& ei=5090&partner=rssuserland No Registration Link

Are you an idiot?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/22/books/22thompson .html

I would post a Wikipedia URL but, you know...

Interesting definition of a weak candidate. Some how the fact that Bush did not complete his duty in the Texas National Guard seems to evade you and the fact that you bought into the RNC spin and Swift Boat baloney really is quite telling about your ability to make clear reasoned judgments. Its amazing that as a U.S.M.C you're more impressed with a man who's family had political connections to get him out of Vietnam tour of duty versus a man who volunteered to go to Vietnam to serve.

I am a Libertarian
That explains so much. Libertarians are the polar opposites of communists, both however share quixotic notions of their utopian societies.

Let me lay the facts down for you buddy, since you're highly confused watching your Fox News propaganda. We went into Iraq because we had incorrect intelligence that Saddam had WMDs. Are you with me so far? Then after looking like a bunch of morons to the rest of the world who we gave the finger to (e.g. "Old Europe") for starting a preemptive war that was clearly unjustified. The administration puts the spin on it that it was all about promoting freedom in the middle east. Okay ... now for the bad news.

You many come down on democracy all you want. However, democracy is truly the most peaceful system around. Most nations that deal with one another in a democratic fashion will almost never resort to war
Lets talk about freedom and democracy for a second since thats what both you and I can agree that is a good thing. Why is it that we support and ally with a military dictator who over threw the democratically elected leader in a coup d'etat on one side of the world and who's country has been selling nukes to all the pariah nations. Then using questionable intelligence invade another country that didn't have nukes and then put the spin on it by declaring the promotion of "freedom" and "democracy" in the middle east. I fail to see how the public don't see this glaring irony. By the way has anyone see Bin Laden around?

The Man Who Sold the Bomb

Khan's Dangerous Game

Musharraf Named in Nuclear ProbeFebruary 3, 2004

Pakistan Ended Aid to Taliban Only Hesitantly December 8, 2001

Musharraf: Bin Laden may be dead23 December, 2001

Pakistan's leader thinks bin Laden deadJanuary 18, 2002

Bin Laden trail is cold, Musharraf admitsDecember 6, 2004

A Hostile Land Foils the Quest for bin LadenDecember 13, 2004

Protest at Musharraf's army role 19 December, 2004
So much for us supporting "democracy" and "freedom"

With North Korea's recent declaration of possessing nuclear weapons. One should stop to ask Pakistan's military or ISI (Intra Service Intelligence) how the hell N. Korea, Libya and Iran all got their nuclear weapons. How Pakistan traded their nuclear know how for N. Korea's medium range missiles.

The best part of all this is that A.Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistan atomic bomb is consider to be a "hero" in his home country and is

Interesting definition of a weak candidate. Some how the fact that Bush did not complete his duty in the Texas National Guard seems to evade you and the fact that you bought into the RNC spin and Swift Boat baloney really is quite telling about your ability to make clear reasoned judgments. Its amazing that as a U.S.M.C you're more impressed with a man who's family had political connections to get him out of Vietnam tour of duty versus a man who volunteered to go to Vietnam to serve.

I am a Libertarian
That explains so much. Libertarians are the polar opposites of communists, both however share quixotic notions of their utopian societies.

Let me lay the facts down for you buddy, since you're highly confused watching your Fox News propaganda. We went into Iraq because we had incorrect intelligence that Saddam had WMDs. Are you with me so far? Then after looking like a bunch of morons to the rest of the world who we gave the finger to (e.g. "Old Europe") for starting a preemptive war that was clearly unjustified. The administration puts the spin on it that it was all about promoting freedom in the middle east. Okay ... now for the bad news.

You many come down on democracy all you want. However, democracy is truly the most peaceful system around. Most nations that deal with one another in a democratic fashion will almost never resort to war
Lets talk about freedom and democracy for a second since thats what both you and I can agree that is a good thing. Why is it that we support and ally with a military dictator who over threw the democratically elected leader in a coup d'etat on one side of the world and who's country has been selling nukes to all the pariah nations. Then using questionable intelligence invade another country that didn't have nukes and then put the spin on it by declaring the promotion of "freedom" and "democracy" in the middle east. I fail to see how the public don't see this glaring irony. By the way has anyone see Bin Laden around?

The Man Who Sold the Bomb

Khan's Dangerous Game

Musharraf Named in Nuclear ProbeFebruary 3, 2004

Pakistan Ended Aid to Taliban Only Hesitantly December 8, 2001

Musharraf: Bin Laden may be dead23 December, 2001

Pakistan's leader thinks bin Laden deadJanuary 18, 2002

Bin Laden trail is cold, Musharraf admitsDecember 6, 2004

A Hostile Land Foils the Quest for bin LadenDecember 13, 2004

Protest at Musharraf's army role 19 December, 2004
So much for us supporting "democracy" and "freedom"

With North Korea's recent declaration of possessing nuclear weapons. One should stop to ask Pakistan's military or ISI (Intra Service Intelligence) how the hell N. Korea, Libya and Iran all got their nuclear weapons. How Pakistan traded their nuclear know how for N. Korea's medium range missiles.

The best part of all this is that A.Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistan atomic bomb is consider to be a "hero" in his home country and is