Slashdot Mirror

I've been a relatively long-time listener of Coast to Coast (the show is no longer named after Art Bell), and I've heard about a dozen different guests speak on the topic of what HAARP "actually is"... and while your explanation is more than possible, it doesn't seem to hold water particularly better than a number of other explanations I've heard.

I'd remind you that there is no complete official explanation to what HAARP does (it is after all largely classified), so you can really just stop thinking you know "why the Pentagon is interested in this thing."

Point is, we don't know.

Now, since it's "kookery," you might get a kick out of discovering that there is a UN treaty -- ratified in the 1977 -- that makes specific stipulations about forbidding the use of weather modification tactics (and earthquake weaponry) in international warfare. The treaty is called "Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques."

Find the whole treaty text here:

+ http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm

Not to be overly sarcastic about this, but notice the absolute lack of any international treaties regarding the uses of teleport chambers, portals, and care bear stares.... It's a serious treaty.

I would like to follow this up with Senate Bill S. 517, introduced by Sen. Kay Hutchison [R-TX] in March of 2005. Funny that HAARP's suddenly getting larger in the very same year, isn't it?

While weather modification has yet to be completely openly demonstrated, there *is* plenty of public record that weather modification isn't exactly seen as a joke by people spending our tax dollars.

On a related note, Nikola Tesla accidentally caused an earthquake in New York, experimenting with his Tesla Coil (it's why he had to shut that lab down and move it out of the city). Before I go too far with this, let me tie up the Tesla tangent by noting that anyone seriously thinking about what HAARP could be would find more detailed information about Tesla's work very, very interesting; there is more than a little that HAARP and the Tesla coil have in common. (Tesla himself seemed sure he would be able to manipulate all sorts of natural phenomena, but that's another story.)

Quickly about the HAARP ideas you've dismissed:

1 - Mind Control. This idea comes from the fact that ELF (extremely low frequency) waves have allegedly been found to make humans more complacent, or agreeable. I have no specific evidence to point anyone to confirming or denying this. Though I will say that you all have a Mind Control device in your living room called a "television" that operates at 60 Hz and sends you consumeristic and/or propagandistic messages all the time... I don't see how HAARP can be more effective, but I suppose my point is you never know! ;-)

2 - Weather Modification. This is the most plausible of the three ideas you suggested as being silly. I don't see why not, really.

3 - Ray Gun. Never heard that one before from any guests; though more than one caller to the show has suggested it. Also, I just started listening 3 years ago, so there's plenty of past material I've missed.

Ultimately, I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone) about what HAARP *is*. Rather my point here is that *you just don't know* what it is, and there's *plenty* of room for speculation about it, including the speculation that the "Art Bell posters" have to share.

As parting thoughts, I'd like to remind readers that there weren't aviation laws until the airplane was invented.

The Army has never denied that.

Just earlier that day US officials in London had denied using these weapons

There was only one official making that claim. He is Ambassador Tuttle -- a crony of Bush. His last job was an auto dealer for goodness' sake. He is not qualified to comment on Army weaponry, much less be the ambassador. He's clueless.

Here's his bio from the State Dept web site:

Robert Holmes Tuttle was sworn in as U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James's on July 14, 2005. A businessman with extensive experience in the private sector, Mr. Tuttle is Co-Managing Partner of Tuttle-Click Automotive Group, one of the largest automobile dealer organizations in the United States.

Hmm, here you go, Google for "war 1812 whitehouse":
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16314.htm

America signed the UN charter. The UN charter considers it a crime to go to war except in imminent self-defence, or when authorised by the UN security council.

There are probably better places to go on holiday than to Somalia. Somalia has no central government and the country is run by warlords. Google is your friend. You could also try http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2863.htm or http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/destination s/africa/somalia

AC, let's set up a straw man to your logic as well. You're postulating we should never plan for an event that has never occurred? Do you think terrorists are seeking nuclear and bio weapons? http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/14848.htm

It might be a Federal document, but with a total standard (non rushed) fee of $97, I should be able to f#ck with it if I want to. ;-) (of course that would probobly result in another $97 fee, but that is outside the scope of my worthless point) Cost figures from here.

Surely a 2d barcode would be better, or just use old tech mag swipe?

According to the State Department the chip will contain a complete electronic picture of the passport holder. Neither barcodes (even the 2D variety) nor mag stripes store information at high enough density to make this practical.

Fortunately, there is some middle ground here: smart cards that require direct electrical contact to read the data. This isn't an instant panacea by any means, but it certainly eliminates a lot of the most obvious problems in a hurry. As a bonus, smart cards designed to be secure have been widely deployed for quite a while now. Admittedly, "designed to be secure" doesn't necessarily mean they are secure -- but they do have had 10+ years of design, testing, vetting, and refinement behind them.

This is a decided contrast to the state department's situation. From the looks of things, they haven't even nailed down the details of the design yet, but the plan to have it fully deployed less than a year from now.

--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

For your perusal: Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship right from the State Department.

Note that this doesn't excuse you from prior taxes or other financial obligations in the US.

How? The SSN is nowhere on the birth certificate. If your statement was true an identity thief could walk into the county registrar's office and get the SSNs of everyone born in the county.

Also, a passport application requires proof of US citizenship (for which a birth certificate will work) AND proof of identity (which includes a government-issued photo ID). If you have someone else's birth certificate, the info on that won't match the photo on the ID with your picture on it. (I'm assuming here that they do some checking to make sure the ID is real.)

Earlier this year, I was sitting at a travel agent's office in Japan. There was a message prominately displayed on the desk in both English and Japanese informing travelers that they needed to have special machine-readable passports to enter the U.S. The rest of the world already thinks of us as loonies. This new nonsense won't help. Especially since we're requiring *other countries* to do this as well if their citizens want to enter the U.S.

What's the point of RFID in a passport? Is it somehow magically impossible to forge or duplicate? Can't we agree that the people who are willing to go through the effort to make counterfeit documents like this will also have the resources to handle RFID? Aren't there ways we can spend this money that might do something a little more rational towards increasing security? Like what? I dunno. But there are probably better ways to spend the millions (billions?) this will cost to implement.

Don't you think that the US government tries to protect the rights of US citizens working abroad?

Specifically, what do you think the guys in Mexico City, Ciudad Juarez, Guadalajara, Hermosillo, Matamoros, Monterrey, Nuevo Laredo, Puerto Vallarta and Tijuana are getting paid for? Only Russia plays host to as many US consulates.

How can we possibly be safe without the UN controlling the Internet?

Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.

American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Then, for some reason, we invaded Iraq.

Read the 17 U.N. resolutions at the end of this post. These are the U.N. resolutions that the government of Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, repeatedly violated in a period of over a decade. These were written and voted on by U.N. nation members, who later voted for and approved of the use of force in removing the offending government in Iraq.

Also note that, as verifiable via public records, this vote took place before President Bush's speech where he first mentions the possibility of WMDs beig developed in Iraq. This was a mistake on Bush's part for trying to "sell the war" with the possibility of WMDs, because it as since been portrayed (incorrectly) as the main reason for the war. In Bush's defense though, the production of WMDs was a plausible possibility, since Saddam did kick out all the U.N. weapon inspectors.

But don't take my word for it. All the facts are out there, it just requires an honest mindset to find them amongst all the crap propaganda coming from both pro and anti-war sides.

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

But why would Americans need such shops or street vendors? Most Americans have high-speed internet access, or can obtain their illegal software from the computers at work. In many other countries, they don't have the network access, or jobs, so they have to buy off the street.

OK, so what you are saying is that access to a high speed net link somehow supplants the need for the shops? Why did America not have a widespread network of these shops before distribution of movies via the internet became commonplace (Probably less than 5 years ago)? Why is it that despite the fact that my entire Marketing Department, Sales Department, Directors and Administration all have access to a high speed net link, both domestically and at work, why do they all bug the IT Department guys for downloaded copies of the latest movies?

The distribution channel is only superficially related to the scale of the piracy problem. It is more the case that by allowing these places to exist that they are implicitly condoned by the authorities, which makes people more inclined to take advantage of the impossibly cheap prices they offer, which the studios have absolutely no chance of competing with. Heck, why would anyone bother downloading a movie if they are available on every street corner for less than the cost of the bandwidth, and without the hassle of tying up your broadband line for however long it takes?


I don't see what makes street vendors any more evil than other "pirates." I also don't see how the existence of street vending makes piracy a more serious problem than other methods, like Bittorrent.

I didn't say pirates are 'evil'. I was making the point that whilst the governments turn a blind eye to piracy by (for example) allowing the existence of the shops then the piracy problem in these countries makes it uneconomical for companies to compete on a large scale.


"but I would imagine that the piracy situation in countries where you can openly buy pirated material on the high street is going to be significantly bigger than in those aforementioned countries where the piracy market is somewhat underground."

Why? What is the logic behind this reasoning?

As I said before, I have no figures to back it up, so it was just a hunch based on the fact that when I walk in to Joe Schmo's house where I live, he will have maybe 20 DVD's on the shelf, and of those maybe 1 or 2 are pirate copies. Now when I have visited Joe Schmoski in Russia he has 20 DVDs on the shelf, of which maybe, and it's a BIG maybe, 1 is an original. So before I had no evidence, but now you have got me interested let's have a look for some quick quotes:

http://www.dvdexclusive.com/article.asp?articleID= 2431/

"Overall DVD unit shipments in China are forecast to rise to more than 300 million in 2009, up from about 100 million DVD units in 2005. Also, stronger government support should work to curb the country's present 90% piracy rate, where virtually all films are consumed illegally, to 70% to 80% by in 2009."

http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive/2005/May/26-92 5739.html

Recent reports on global intellectual property rights (IPR) protections paint a "stark and unattractive" picture of the situation in China, where piracy levels in some sectors exceed 90 percent, Utah Republican Orrin Hatch said during a May 25 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

In fact: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=china+russi a+piracy&meta= there's hundreds of sources. Looks like I was right.


This doesn't make sense. China is issuing this format for its own citizens. Chinese companies will be pressing the discs. China doesn't need anyone's permission o

http://www.state.gov/p/io/fs/2004/36416.htm
http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b= 328791
http://www.mikenew.com/un-debt.html

It seems the US financial contributions to the UN are (and have been) nontrivial over the past 50 years, and it also seems that the question of "UN debt" is a contested issue.

This quote is from the following web site:

"The United States is the largest financial contributor to the UN, and has been every year since its creation in 1945. U.S. contributions to the UN system in 2003 were well over $3 billion. In-kind contributions include items such as food donations for the World Food Program.

The U.S.-assessed contribution to the UN regular budget in 2003 was $341 million, and to UN specialized agencies was over $400 million. The United States also contributed $686 million in assessments to the peacekeeping budget; $57 million for the support of the international war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia; and $6 million for preparatory work relating to the Capital Master Plan to renovate the UN Headquarters in New York. Moreover, each year the United States provides a significant amount in voluntary contributions to the UN and its affiliated agencies and activities, largely for humanitarian and development programs."

Well you're just giving more weight to my point : Pakistan is an Islamic Republic! Islam is the state religion, there's no secularism there, so of course it is illegal to teach evolution over there. (see http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35519.htm) Turkey is supposed to support secularism, as church and state have been set appart since Ataturk, but lately there has been a religious pressure over there, and Turkey is well-known for its problems with human rights. I wouldn't say that you have chosen the best countries to compare with the United States of America...

At any rate, would you have found more recommandable countries in the same situation, it wouldn't change anything : as you said the whole thing is just silly. It's really worrysome that such a thing could happen, as we expect much better from the USA we know and love (I know this would never, ever happen here in France. This couldn't even be considered a single second. Evolution is even taught in religious private schools here, while the creation is only taught where it belongs : in religious education. And even there, it's only being depicted as a metaphor!)

Since when does Google have the power and responsability of recognizing foreign nations? They are an American (as in USA) company there I'd expect them to respect the US Department of State's (right or wrong) position on this matter. If the US doesn't recognize Taiwan as an independent nation then why should Google?

"The U.S. does not support Taiwan independence. President Bush clearly stated U.S. policy on December 9, 2003."
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm/

Well its a subject for heated debate whether the constitution does assure you a right to privacy and what the bounds of that right are. When telephones came in to common use in the early twentieth century it was routine for the police to listen in on suspected criminals or maybe anyone they wanted to find some dirt on.

The first Supreme Court case tested wire taps in 1928 in fact found in favor of wire tapping, because ... wait for it ... the police were not entering the persons home so they were not invading the privacy of their home. Here is a good link on the history of the right to privacy.

Here is a particularly important part on wire tapping. Justice Louis D. Brandeis was writing in the dissent in Olmstead v. United States (1928). His view would ultimately prevail years later and is now in grievous danger of being overturned again by a rising tide of Fascism in the U.S. :

"Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at both ends of the line is invaded, and all conversations between them on any subject, and although proper, confidential, and privileged, may be overheard. . . .
The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure, and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the one most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment."

Its important to read this stuff these days. The right to privacy was the cornerstone of the confirmation hearing of our new Chief Justice Roberts, names like Olmstead and Griswold. There is a suspicion Judge Roberts appointment is designed to overturn all the cases affirming right to privacy, a right to not have your phone tapped, a right to abortions, a right to access birth control.

Religious fundamentalists banned birth control in Connecticut in the 19th century. When this law was challenged in 1965 in Griswold .vs. Connecticut it laid the foundation for much of our modern right to privacy, in this case it was an individuals right to practice birth control without state intervention. This evolved in to the right to an abortion in Roe v Wade.

J. Edgar Hoover used wire taps and his control of the FBI to accumulate vast amounts of dirt on anyone and everyone, and insured he held an iron grip on the helm of the FBI and in fact the U.S. in general for decades. No one would challenge him because he had dirt on everyone. He was the ultimate defiler of the right to privacy. With modern techology and the collapse of our right to privacy thanks to fear mongering politicians the potential is great for the rise of new J. Edgars who are even more powerful and more dangerous. A leading candidate is George W's new National Intelligen Director, John Negroponte. He doesn't control the FBI he controls the CIA, the NSA and every spying resource the U.S. has now. Negroponte was infamous for supporting right wing death squads in Central America that did Fascism proud.

We will have to keep this in mind the next time we are asked for help. Since we are no longer trusted in the international community, make sure you reject any Philanthropic efforts by the United States such as:

this
this
this
this
and especially this

Run that last one as a summary of all countries and it is especially telling. I am pretty sick and tired of the hypocrisy, especially in much of Europe, tha berates the United States as xenophobic and untrustworthy yet has no qualms about accepting our assistance (and even asking for more).

If we really should be shunned, then fine. We will stop helping providing assistance to other countries as well. Let's see France, Germany, Russia, or China pony up like the US has. The US already contributes more than all these countries combined. Never happen.

No, it didn't.

The US signed Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction and thePROTOCOL FOR THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE IN WAR OF ASPHYXIATING, POISONOUS OR OTHER GASES, AND OF BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS OF WARFARE

Both of which allow having biological agents for peaceful and protective purposes. I.E. Exactly what the US is doing here.

I'll just mention that firstly, I think it's good you pointed out the hyperbole in the grandparent poster. I also think there have been more "fuckworthy" governments than GW Bush, but the thing is - not in any of our lifetimes, right? And that's where you've missed the point completely. You're focusing on the hyperbole but the real message was that it is disturbing to see these traits of oppression and totalitarianism (and an open disregard for your constitution, E.G. forcible disarming of the citizens of New Orleans) [hmm, I guess that was my turn for hyperbole]. [3]

So, anyway.. am I mis-reading the theme of your post here? That to expect responsible adults (and countries) to make ethical, rational decisions is too much to ask?

As screwed up as it sounds, these are the sole reasons I voted for Bush--screw Iraq, screw Afghanistan.

But to what extent? In these countries since the conflict began, they're accumulating deaths equivilent to a "911" attack every 3 months [2]. If the USA was getting 12,000 deaths a year [1] would they be happy about it?

Conversely, the Middle Eastern people created Bush and the administration. You reap what you sow doesn't care what side you're on.

It sounds like you're saying, "It isn't our fault we're arrogant bastards, it's everyone else's for not standing up and trying to fuck us back!".

It's my understanding that this is the type of attitude that lables America with the term "arrogant"; that they think if there's no conflict and confrontation, everybody must be happy with it.

People are still ultimately responsible for their choices and actions.

Incredible...

[1] pp2, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/47081. pdf
[2] 2,749 (WTO) + 184 (Pentagon) + 40 (Flight 93) - pp552, http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
[3] I think tightly regulated gun control is a good thing. Is America's culture and society ready for it? Probably not in all places. But if you're going to ignore the fucking constitution, exactly how does a citizen actually know what their rights are and what rules their government is playing by?

Slander may be a civil tort, but it is still a legal infraction. Here's some info by Steven Pressman:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press0 8.htm

Legal = Law. Regardless of whether it is civil or criminal, slander is still a form of speech that is restricted by the US federal government. Whether there is a statute specifically forbidding it (there is not) or if the courts enforce (via civil tort adjudication) it, the US government has decided that it can, under powers granted it by the Constitution, and laws passed since, restrict slander.

Here's the http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm (Space Treaty)

To me a jamming satellite can be superficially argued as as outside of the scope of the treaty. It is certainly outside of the spirit of the treaty as expressed in several clauses. Any legalistas out there think that there is an arguable case here?

It might be relatively passive but its intent is to be used as a weapon, both defensively and aggressively. Used as an indiscriminant public mass disruption tool would this qualify as a 'Weapon Of Mass Destruction'?

I presume that this can not only be used against ground targets but also against other satellites?

Bad precedent - are we about to witness a race for orbital supremecy? What would it take (theoretically) to hack or bring down a satellite? (Furiously gaffer-tapes laser pointers together)

What is it's location?

The Outer Space Treaty

according to the US State Department... about 10% "Government economic policy aims to promote investment and domestic growth in a stable fiscal and monetary environment. Creating jobs and reducing the high unemployment rate through recovery-supportive policy has been a top priority. The Government of France successfully reduced an unemployment rate of 12% to 8.7% in the late 1990s but has seen unemployment increase to above 10.1% in early 2005." http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3842.htm

If the ACLU was actually doing that, I wouldn't have much of a complaint. When they started defending those who would bring about the end to liberty and freedom for everybody, they gave up any claim to being a legitimate civil-rights organization.

Who should make the determination of whose liberties are protected? If you let the government do this, and say we should trust them, then what liberty do we really have?

Just today, a federal appeals court ruled that an American citizen (Jose Padilla), captured on American soil who is merely accused of involvement with terrorist plots does not have traditional Habeas Corpus rights. These rights have been the pillars of civil liberty since before the American revolution and the suspension of these rights is was a major factor in the decision on the part of the colonies to rebel (along with suspension of jury trials too which we see in the Padilla case, and unfair taxation).

Our founding fathers felt so strongly about the right to Habeas peititions that they enshrined them in Article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution (it wasn't even controversial enough to make it an ammendment). Under this framework, the suspension of Habeas petitions can only be made by *congress* and only during times of insurrection or invasion.

In this case, if we allow the Bush Administration to ignore what has been a pillar of civil liberty for over 300 years, then we do not have a Free country worth defending. The ACLU for better or worse (along with the NRA, the EFF, and other groups) are part of the bullwark that prevents our country from becoming anything less than Free.

As an aside, given that Hamdi was decided basically 8-1* in favor of granting Hamdi (who was detained in Afghanistan) a Habeas petition, I fail to see how the Supreme Court can uphold this current opinion. However, we must remain vigilant.

* It is worth noting that I include the Scalia-Stevens dissent as part of the majority here because Scalia's opinion (which Stevens joined) was that the plurality opinion did not go far enough in protecting Hamdi's due Habeas and Due Process rights. The only dissenting voice was that of Thomas in this case.

IANAL, but many in my family are lawyers who work on many of these types of issues.

Indeed we may be at a crossroads of epic purportions in this country. Only President Lincoln felt that the executive had the power to suspend Habeas. And when it became clear that the court was not going to agree, Congress stepped in. Even so, in the case of Ex Parte Milligan, the courts placed some very strong limitations on the extent to which Habeas could be suspended in areas far removed from the theater of combat (a precident much winded by Ex Parte Quirin).

The ACLU is an important part of the opposition ot the erosion of our civil liberties by an over-extending executive which believes that its war-powers allow it to suspend civil liberties in arbitrary ways for an indefinite time. This should not be a matter of partisan politics, nor should it be a matter or right v. left. Indeed defending right-wing elements of our society (what else do you call the KKK) is as much a part of the ACLU's mission as defending the communists.

BTW, I think that history has been kind to Wilhelm Reich's observation in 1950 that Communism was largely played out in the world. This is why nobody cares about you calling the ACLU "communist" as that is irrelevant today.

"Can't happen? It already has -- See Antarctica. No one owns it. Most of the countries of the world have a treaty not to exploit it"

And it has already happened in space as well. See "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies" (http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm)

Article II - Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means

International treaties basically work along the lines of "I won't pull shit if you don't". So better to have status quo than rip up ratified treaties for some rinkydink company.

JK

Here is what the US State Department has to say about China's MODERN record:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27768.ht m/

Lemme see... Page Not Available. Ooooh - China is so evil that they've deleted the page!

Oh and many ppl will be interested in a little ditty about the USA FROM CHINA:
http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303 _175406.html/

Lemme see... Page Not Found. Damn Chinese! They're deleting the entire web!!!

Your point is misguided, as your lack of interest and/or knowledge regarding China's current human rights violations is grossly lacking.

My point is based on over 10 years of studying the Chinese government and society. I have never claimed that China has a great human rights record. I simply do not believe that Iraq was a hell of a lot better.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27768.ht m

http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303 _175406.html

I have to assume you are referring to human rights violations under Mao.

also its due to the high rejection rate (~40%)in visas post 9-11 but still people desperately tried to get. now they have suddenly increased the student visas being approved (~99%) so wait for the flood and the free beer. because u fat americans in univs were not getting any more free money. In the university that I work at we've seen a reduction in the number of students that come to us from India ...and i have been living on ramen noodles...now I can start ordering the pizzas.

http://usembassy.state.gov/mumbai/f_and_j_visas.ht ml
"We recognize that recent changes in visa law have made it more difficult to get a visa in a timely manner.
(suddenly)We are working to improve security clearance procedures to protect our borders and at the same time facilitate legitimate travel.