Slashdot Mirror

There are none so fucking blind as those who will not see.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/02 /18/philippines.iraq.ap/
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast. nidal/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/199 88.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq .centrifuge/
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2002/fyi/news/07/31/ iraq/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/27/sprj.irq .bio.scientist/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/19/sprj.irq .un.missiles/

I certainly wasn't trying to make it sound that way. I agree that it's not, and I thought I showed that, but maybe not. It is definitely not cut and dry; it is a very complicated issue, and I do not envy those who have to deal with it on a daily basis.

Our own country was far from fully supportive, and many other nations had a government that supported the war but a huge chunk of their population that opposed it. That's the essence of the global test. When there are protests around the world against something you're doing, and it's controversial even in your own country, maybe you don't need to rush into it.

That definitely gets an insightful in my book, and I had to think about this for quite a while. I think there is a misconception that no consideration of an action was given when the consequences turn out to be disagreeable. Now, maybe that's true in this case, or maybe it isn't. Nevertheless, in this country, the people are represented by congress, and congress gave the president the authority to take action in Iraq. Congress debated taking this action, and each representative or senator made his or her vote on the basis of how their constituents felt about the issue. We elected them for this purpose and we trust them to consider heavily what is being put before them. If we don't like their representation of us, we have the right to elect a better representative. Some of our representatives agreed with the action and some of them disagreed with the action, as per the opinion of their constituents. The most important thing to remember here is that, the constituents who were protesting were represented.

In dealing with countries in the U.N. we take it on faith that the government of the other countries represents their people to the best of their ability just as ours does. This is why we listen only to their representatives in the U.N. and their heads of state. If we didn't do this, we would be hindering that nation's government to best represent its citizens.

So, while I agree that it's important to not rush into a situation, I'm not really sure it's necessarily a good idea to base our foreign policy purely on those people visibly protesting. Although it should give people pause, it should not restrict the ability of a nation's government to represent the entirety of its citizens.

Maybe you can make a few concessions to accomodate some of the concerns brought up by your critics, or do a better job of explaining your position.

Well, I'm not sure what you mean. Powell made this address before the U.N., and, although I don't necessarily agree with the outcome, I nevertheless think he made it pretty clear why we wanted to do what we did. If you could explain why this was not sufficient, that would be helpful.

That's not enough actually. You can't just picture yourself in another country's shoes, as this is the same as doing something without asking, and may actually be considered more insulting. You can't as an American president, presume to know how a certain country would feel about U.S. military action anywhere. You have to go before the rest of the world, put forth a resolution, and tell them that this is what you want to do. At least that's the procedure that is currently in place.

And that's just the problem. I don't think Bush & co. have been taking seriously any of the input from the rest of the world.

The current administration tried to take the rest of the world seriously. They tried to play by the rules and Colin Powell went before the U.N. to try to convince them to support our resolution for action in Iraq. Multiple times, we tried to get the U.N. security council to back us unconditionally. Furthermore, many U.S. citizens desired U.N. support before taking military action in Iraq, so it was important for the administration to try to achieve this. They did not take the rest of the world lightly in this case.

However, as we all know, these attempts to gain support failed, and at this point maybe that's when the "global test" should have failed. This is when Colin Powell started his tour to find supportive nations, and when he had 49, the "global test" passed for the administration. That is where the controversy lies. There were supportive nations, but the fact that none of them were France, Germany, and Russia was a major issue. Probably the largest sticking point, was the fact that the U.N. Security Council did not back our actions, and we did not have support of all the permanent members.

That being said, the administration felt that it had enough global support to pass its definition of "global test", and made its decision to attack.

The Global Test is more of an abstract concept than a strictly defined set of rules.

And therein lies the problem, and why Bush appeared upset. Bush and Kerry have very different interpretations of what constitutes a "global test". The administration feels that they had enough support globally, but Kerry feels that this was not enough.

So what constitutes a global test? Is it enought to have N number of nations supporting your actions? Is it enought to have only the U.N. Security Council supporting your actions? Do you need more than this? It's a very slippery slope.

It appears, though, that no matter what we do, at least some of the rest of the world will not support us. If, for instance, Canada suddenly just bombed Detroit, I would find it had to believe, even in this case, that we would get overwhemling support in the U.N. to retaliate. Canada would most certainly be condemned by the U.N. for attacking the U.S., but it is doubtful whether the U.N. would support a U.S. attack on Canada. Furthermore, we wouldn't have the support of all the U.N. Security Council in this case. Most of Europe would probably not support action. So now what do we do? Retaliate, or just ignore the attacks?

You cannot take the opinion of the world upon any of your actions lightly, and this is why we went before the U.N., and why it was necessary to consult congress first before any action was taken.

...support W's claims?

This has nothing to do with W's claims. I'm talking about post Gulf War inspections (UNSCOM) that resulting in the disarming of Iraq. Check it out. Note 11 Dec, 1991: "Iraq releases information on its nuclear program"

Please try to be informed when you argue your points. The best way to counter lies is with the deft use of incontrovertable facts.

The United Nation's policies on self-determination have failed to equitably support the right of self-determination for all peoples. "Peoples" has come to be defined by the UN in restrictive ways that are politically correct. Hence the UN cannot effectively address the need for humanity to have frontiers for peoples of like mind to live out their beliefs.

To have an entity that so violates the need for self-determination be "married to the Internet" would be theocracy's dream and freedom's nightmare.

Shrub probably ain't gay, but given that he graudated in 1964 from an all boy's school (Andover wasn't coed until the '70s), you gotta wonder just who's crotch he was holding.

I'll debate you on the facts.

First, we have not killed thousands of innocents. Sure, maybe during Vietnam or the Korean War or World War II, but not during the Iraq wars. I'd like to see your source. The reason we don't hear about it is because it hasn't happened. That's the same reason why you haven't heard about the six billion dollars I made selling lemonade.

If you would like to know who has killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, look to Saddam Hussein. Look at the mass graves. (link, link, and link) Look at the torture he has inflicted. (link, link, link)

I don't know how that even compares to the limited number of casualties that the US Forces caused. It doesn't even compare with what happened at Abu Ghraib. Nevertheless, America as a country is pursuing justice. Already, one of the perpetrators has been heavily sentenced. The others will be punished shortly. At least they get a fair trial.

Now, I know I won't sway you with my words or my evidence, because you have already seen the evidence. You are like the monkey who refuses to see and hear the atrocities committed against the people in Iraq. You then turn around and make a mountain out of a molehill, comparing the abuse that some prisoners suffered at the hand of American soldiers to the torture and suffering that Saddam caused.

I looked for accurate data on the number of civilians killed in Iraq by American soldiers. There is no such number reported anywhere. And the numbers of civilians killed isn't even accurate. Some say 25,000. Others say 6,000. Which one is right? Why are they so different? It's easy. They are not accurate. No one has done an actual body count. No one has done a count where civilians were distinguished from terrorists, insurgents, and the Iraqi military. Unfortunately, you can't ask the dead whether they were innocent or a terrorist. And you can't tell by what clothes they were wearing or even their age.

Your lies stop here.

It has nothing to do with anybody thinking he is some sort of an authority on anything.

You may want to educate yourself a little on the US Senate Committee system before making such blanket statements. While it is true that Byrd has been on the Committee since 1958, it is expected that a Committee Leader had better have some sort of expertise, experience, and interest related to the subject of their Committee! The real issue of why he wasn't forced to resign his leadership position (or even his Senate post) after his self-destructive racist comment remains beyond explanation. Shouldn't the NAACP quickly crucify any public official who used the word "nigger"? Oh yeah -- he's a Dem, so it's OK.

BTW, the Senate Committee on Appropriations is of minor importance anyway -- they're just the ones who dole out and keep track of our tax dollars.

Becides I bet 2/3 of the congress are racist. They just know when to keep their mouths shut.

Wow, what an intelligent statement! Did you come up with that on your own? I guess you don't have any facts to back it up, being that they're all keeping quiet. I also guess that it's OK for me to hate anyone I like as long as I don't put it on record . . .

More than that it's a perfect case to show the hillarity of the system... The idea of letting ANYTHING out of your mouth or pen be copyrighted is perposterous...especially for 150+ years!!

1. stamp a copyright notice on your reply;
2. enclose a cover letter stating that your reply is covered by copyright, and mat not be duplicated, either physically or electronically, or entered into any information retrieval system, without your express consent and that the license fee is $[insert number here]
3. PROFIT! (and show that the system is broken)

5 FAM 480
USE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
(TL:IM-46; 12-05-2003)
(Office of Origin: IRM/BPC/RG)
5 FAM 481 GENERAL POLICY
(TL:IM-46; 12-05-2003)
a. There is no general license for Federal agencies to copy and disseminate, whether in printed, audio, video, or electronic form, (including facsimile transmission and electronic mail) copyrighted material. In addition to paper publications, copyright materials include non-printed material such as microfilm, software, sound recordings, video films or tapes, and Internet items. The purchase of subscriptions to periodicals, special reports, digital video discs, video tapes or sound recordings, and other copyrighted materials does not carry authority to copy and/or disseminate those materials.
[/snip]
...
[snip]

Under copyright law (Title 17 of the United States Code), the "fair use" doctrine (see 5 FAM 484 below) permits, under limited circumstances, the copying of small portions of copyrighted material for certain purposes.

b. The holders of copyrights are entitled to compensation for articles and other copyrighted materials copied by the Federal Government, beyond that permissible under the "fair use" doctrine, unless the holders grant permission for the use.

The Department of State expects its employees to
comply with the copyright law just as with any other applicable law.
[/snip]

[snip]

5 FAM 482 OBTAINING LICENSES
(TL:IM-23; 05-15-1997)

a. Many publishers of copyrighted material, who do business with the Federal Government, may be willing to negotiate licenses that would allow copying in the volumes necessary to meet information needs of the Department.
[/snip]

5 FAM 484 FAIR USE
(TL:IM-23; 05-15-1997)
The copyright law provides that "fair use" may be made of copyrighted works for such purposes as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.

Factors to consider in determining "fair use" are:
. The nature of the copyrighted work;
. The amount and substantiality of the portion used;
. The purpose and character of the use; and
. The effect of the use on the potential market for, or value of the copyrighted work.

So, wnat to show that it's broken? Push it to the extreme. It's the same tactics the **AAs have been using. (insert your own "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander comment here :-)

No WMD were ever found.

Here's some more interesting quotes:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons

I tried that back when I graduated, and all three jobs I applied for requiring clearance told me they weren't taking anyone without it regardless of how good they were. They weren't even willing to tell me how to get a clearance by myself without a company backing me (It appears that you can't).

Of course, this was a couple of years ago when they probably DID have a hundred other applicants with all of the clearances and ten years more experience than I had.

"The goal is to make it more difficult for hackers to deface and/or hijack the website," said Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke.

I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

"The goal is to make it more difficult for hackers to deface and/or hijack the website," said Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke.

I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

"The goal is to make it more difficult for hackers to deface and/or hijack the website," said Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke.

I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

And what's wrong with foreign aid? Can't we do something nice for people once in awhile? We certainly could use a better reputation as a country.
Actually, foreign aid is one of the reasons we're in the situation we're in. We give aid to the governments of Isreal and Saudi Arabia (though in Saudi Arabia's case we don't have to give them cash - after all, they're getting enough from all that oil. Instead we hook them up with weapons and military training). This is one of the biggest reasons why Arabs and Muslims hate America. I doubt Saudis and Palestinians being brutally repressed by these governments are thanking us for doing "something nice for people once in awhile".

I do think recalling our troops and ending foreign aid would go a long way towards ending terrorism. Would bin Laden give up the Jihad? Probably not. But it would make it a lot harder for him to find recruits (assuming we also got out of Iraq, as Badnarik proposes).

But it turned out that he was a really nice guy, and it occured to me then that judging a person on actions taken at age 13 wasn't very fair of me; he'd grown a lot since then. He appologized for the way he'd acted.

Listen, you smashed body of a wretched animal. I suspect it wasn't meant as a compliment.

Furthermore, your grandstanding assertion that "sensitivity [is] an extremely worthwhile lesson" indicates to anyone with the barest grasp of Collaborative Discussion Theory that you've never uttered a word of substance. To anyone. I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

I weep for the future if you think a random blast of vulgarity is a "raving troll". Patriots question the "Patriot" act and Ashcroft says they aid terrorists, Maddox opens his mouth and censorship is attempted. We live in the age of feelies and soma and a lack of Quality (Pirsig) and you are amused by self-referential parody of the hopelessness of the age? You appendage of Cthulhu. Go back to your lair; we are not ready for you yet!

Your inner thoughts as you posted your ill-advised diatribe:

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

But it turned out that he was a really nice guy, and it occured to me then that judging a person on actions taken at age 13 wasn't very fair of me; he'd grown a lot since then. He appologized for the way he'd acted.

Listen, you smashed body of a wretched animal. I suspect it wasn't meant as a compliment.

Furthermore, your grandstanding assertion that "sensitivity [is] an extremely worthwhile lesson" indicates to anyone with the barest grasp of Collaborative Discussion Theory that you've never uttered a word of substance. To anyone. I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

I weep for the future if you think a random blast of vulgarity is a "raving troll". Patriots question the "Patriot" act and Ashcroft says they aid terrorists, Maddox opens his mouth and censorship is attempted. We live in the age of feelies and soma and a lack of Quality (Pirsig) and you are amused by self-referential parody of the hopelessness of the age? You appendage of Cthulhu. Go back to your lair; we are not ready for you yet!

Your inner thoughts as you posted your ill-advised diatribe:

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

But it turned out that he was a really nice guy, and it occured to me then that judging a person on actions taken at age 13 wasn't very fair of me; he'd grown a lot since then. He appologized for the way he'd acted.

Listen, you smashed body of a wretched animal. I suspect it wasn't meant as a compliment.

Furthermore, your grandstanding assertion that "sensitivity [is] an extremely worthwhile lesson" indicates to anyone with the barest grasp of Collaborative Discussion Theory that you've never uttered a word of substance. To anyone. I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

I weep for the future if you think a random blast of vulgarity is a "raving troll". Patriots question the "Patriot" act and Ashcroft says they aid terrorists, Maddox opens his mouth and censorship is attempted. We live in the age of feelies and soma and a lack of Quality (Pirsig) and you are amused by self-referential parody of the hopelessness of the age? You appendage of Cthulhu. Go back to your lair; we are not ready for you yet!

Your inner thoughts as you posted your ill-advised diatribe:

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Listen, you smashed body of a wretched animal. I suspect it wasn't meant as a compliment.

Furthermore, your grandstanding assertion that this is "one of the best [you]'ve ever had the honor of receiving" indicates to anyone with the barest grasp of Collaborative Discussion Theory that you've never uttered a word of substance. To anyone. I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

I weep for the future if you think a random blast of vulgarity is a "raving troll". Patriots question the "Patriot" act and Ashcroft says they aid terrorists, Maddox opens his mouth and censorship is attempted. We live in the age of feelies and soma and a lack of Quality (Pirsig) and you are amused by self-referential parody of the hopelessness of the age? You appendage of Cthulhu. Go back to your lair; we are not ready for you yet!

Your inner thoughts as you posted your ill-advised diatribe:

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Listen, you smashed body of a wretched animal. I suspect it wasn't meant as a compliment.

Furthermore, your grandstanding assertion that this is "one of the best [you]'ve ever had the honor of receiving" indicates to anyone with the barest grasp of Collaborative Discussion Theory that you've never uttered a word of substance. To anyone. I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

I weep for the future if you think a random blast of vulgarity is a "raving troll". Patriots question the "Patriot" act and Ashcroft says they aid terrorists, Maddox opens his mouth and censorship is attempted. We live in the age of feelies and soma and a lack of Quality (Pirsig) and you are amused by self-referential parody of the hopelessness of the age? You appendage of Cthulhu. Go back to your lair; we are not ready for you yet!

Your inner thoughts as you posted your ill-advised diatribe:

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Listen, you smashed body of a wretched animal. I suspect it wasn't meant as a compliment.

Furthermore, your grandstanding assertion that this is "one of the best [you]'ve ever had the honor of receiving" indicates to anyone with the barest grasp of Collaborative Discussion Theory that you've never uttered a word of substance. To anyone. I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

I weep for the future if you think a random blast of vulgarity is a "raving troll". Patriots question the "Patriot" act and Ashcroft says they aid terrorists, Maddox opens his mouth and censorship is attempted. We live in the age of feelies and soma and a lack of Quality (Pirsig) and you are amused by self-referential parody of the hopelessness of the age? You appendage of Cthulhu. Go back to your lair; we are not ready for you yet!

Your inner thoughts as you posted your ill-advised diatribe:

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Listen, you smashed body of a wretched animal. I suspect it wasn't meant as a compliment.

Furthermore, your grandstanding assertion that this is "one of the best [you]'ve ever had the honor of receiving" indicates to anyone with the barest grasp of Collaborative Discussion Theory that you've never uttered a word of substance. To anyone. I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drug Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

I weep for the future if you think a random blast of vulgarity is a "raving troll". Patriots question the "Patriot" act and Ashcroft says they aid terrorists, Maddox opens his mouth and censorship is attempted. We live in the age of feelies and soma and a lack of Quality (Pirsig) and you are amused by self-referential parody of the hopelessness of the age? You appendage of Cthulhu. Go back to your lair; we are not ready for you yet!

Your inner thoughts as you posted your ill-advised diatribe:

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Listen, you smashed body of a wretched animal. I suspect it wasn't meant as a compliment.

Furthermore, your grandstanding assertion that this is "one of the best [you]'ve ever had the honor of receiving" indicates to anyone with the barest grasp of Collaborative Discussion Theory that you've never uttered a word of substance. To anyone. I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drug Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

I weep for the future if you think a random blast of vulgarity is a "raving troll". Patriots question the "Patriot" act and Ashcroft says they aid terrorists, Maddox opens his mouth and censorship is attempted. We live in the age of feelies and soma and a lack of Quality (Pirsig) and you are amused by self-referential parody of the hopelessness of the age? You appendage of Cthulhu. Go back to your lair; we are not ready for you yet!

Your inner thoughts as you posted your ill-advised diatribe:

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Listen, you smashed body of a wretched animal. I suspect it wasn't meant as a compliment.

Furthermore, your grandstanding assertion that this is "one of the best [you]'ve ever had the honor of receiving" indicates to anyone with the barest grasp of Collaborative Discussion Theory that you've never uttered a word of substance. To anyone. I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drug Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

I weep for the future if you think a random blast of vulgarity is a "raving troll". Patriots question the "Patriot" act and Ashcroft says they aid terrorists, Maddox opens his mouth and censorship is attempted. We live in the age of feelies and soma and a lack of Quality (Pirsig) and you are amused by self-referential parody of the hopelessness of the age? You appendage of Cthulhu. Go back to your lair; we are not ready for you yet!

Your inner thoughts as you posted your ill-advised diatribe:

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

So where's the proof that any of these other organizations were plotting with Saddam against the US? You have none

Uh, he has been trying to attack us since the first Gulf War. We have foiled numerous Iraqi terror plots against us, including an attack on Radio Free Europe in Prague, and an assassination attempt of a former President. He has been working with some of the most notorious terrorists in the world in this campaign, including Abu Nidal and Carlos the Jackal. Our intelligence showed that Iraq was plotting more attacks against us, and this was corroborrated by other countries. What more proof do you want? Iraqi suicide bombers in New York?

And your argument doesn't even make any sense. You cannot fight a war on terrorism while ignoring one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the world.

My argument is that the administration built its case for war on the false premises that there was a collaborative link between Iraq and al Qaida (including hinting that Iraq had something to do with 9-11) and that Iraq was a threat to the US because it had stockpiles of WMDs. Neither of these is true, so now you and the administration look stupid.

Your argument is wrong. The Bush Administration said that Iraq supported terrorists. There is no way you can deny that. Iraq wanted to attack us. There is no way you can deny that either. He had active WMD programs and infrastructure. Again, you cannot deny that. If you do not see that as a threat to us, then I am very glad that you are not in charge of our national security.

Though I couldn't find any breakouts purely for foreign-born, Sweden's foreign-born and first generation immigrant mix is 20 percent. The majority of immigrants appear to be from other Nordic countries, with large numbers of refugess from the former Yugoslavia and a sizeable Iranian/Iraqi population.

Canada currently has the second largest percentage of foreign-born at 18.4 percent. The majority of these are from Asia (56%) and Europe (20%). If the US figures are a guide (and they may not be), Asian and European immigrants tend to have higher educational achievement levels than Latin Americans, which are the majority immigrant group in the US, and would thus tend to depress international standing less than in the US.

Once again, I am not arguing for or against such immigration. Latin American immigration has provided many benefits for the US, but it does have a negative effect on educational achivement levels as a percentage of population.

Though I couldn't find any breakouts purely for foreign-born, Sweden's foreign-born and first generation immigrant mix is 20 percent. The majority of immigrants appear to be from other Nordic countries, with large numbers of refugess from the former Yugoslavia and a sizeable Iranian/Iraqi population.

Canada currently has the second largest percentage of foreign-born at 18.4 percent. The majority of these are from Asia (56%) and Europe (20%). If the US figures are a guide (and they may not be), Asian and European immigrants tend to have higher educational achievement levels than Latin Americans, which are the majority immigrant group in the US, and would thus tend to depress international standing less than in the US.

Once again, I am not arguing for or against such immigration. Latin American immigration has provided many benefits for the US, but it does have a negative effect on educational achivement levels as a percentage of population.

you should like this unbiased news source, yep, absolute 100% facts, pure data, no bias, everything they say is pure truth, never any propoganda or hidden agendas. Ad free too!

%^)

I didn't think the US recognized dual citizenship...

Think again. The US doesn't encourage it, but it certainly allows it.

the $43 million was not given to the taliban. at least, according to what colin powell said

Saddam in no way posed a threat to you. He did not support terrorists. It a lie, he was a threat only to his people.

You are smoking crack. Iraq has been on the Council on Foreign Relations State Sponsors of terrorism for 2 decades. The US state department Indicted Iraq with these words "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq". Iraq openly sponsored Ansar al-Islam (led by Bin Laden trained Abu Musab al-Zarqawi), Hamas, PKK, Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, and the Abu Nidal Organization. Hussein even offered Bin Laden asylum when he was kicked out of Afghanistan by the Taliban in 1999. There are many more examples (1, 2) if you ever bothered to do some research.

Bin Laden is on record calling Saddam a "Socialist Infidel".

He is also on record encouraging the entire muslim world to unit with Iraq to fight against western powers.

I don't know what this deal is with France being the only country asking for evidence instead of biasd inteligence and political cliche.

France doesn't exactly have a great track record when it comes to defending their own national security.

If the threat of Saddam were real wouldn't they want to jump in the ring with us?

Not when the gravy train called the UN "Oil for Food" program was funneling billions in cash and oil their way. Would you want to attack when your hand was still in the cookie jar?

"The Mail on Sunday intended to publish the claim in a tell-all "what the footman saw" feature Nov. 2, but the day before publication, Michael Fawcett, a friend and former valet/personal assistant of the heir to the throne's--and said by the Observer to be the man who had been named as the servant with whom Charles was caught--obtained a court order barring the MoS from publishing the story."

Now, have a read of the first three paragraphs of this website about the court injunction to stop information about the Vietnam war being published. Here's a relevant extract to make it easy for you:

In Near v. Minnesota, Chief Justice Hughes had noted that the rule against prior restraint would not apply in certain cases. No one would question, Hughes declared, "that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing days of transports or the number and location of troops." Using this theory, the Justice Department secured a temporary injunction against the Times. The Washington Post then picked up publication, and when the administration went to court against that paper, the Boston Globe began publication. In an unusual move, the Supreme Court expedited the appeals process, and heard oral argument on June 26, and four days later, on June 30 -- seventeen days after the Times ran the first installment -- handed down its decision.

You do have these laws in your country and they are applied when required. You're a high number user id so let me make it clear to you, unfounded banner waving doesn't cut it here on SlashDot, try to research first and post later since there are at least 796240 other people who could see *your* posts.

Page 25 of this pdf has a sample of this scam from when it was sent via snail-mail in 1994.

One idea though - why not add one of those little "Are you a terrorist?" tick-boxes when you buy tickets?

Quoting from the second page of the US Department of State's current Form DS-156, Nonimmigrant Visa Application:
Do you seek to enter the United States to engage in export control violations, subversive or terrorist activities, or any other unlawful purpose? Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State? (Y/N)

That what you were looking for? :-)

Selling below cost is Dumping Period. Link

If you must know I represented the #3 US Semiconductor Manufacturer a few years back at their succesfull Dumping charges filed with FTC against Korean Memory makers

I have time and time again seen people refer to how the US 'saved' the 'cowardly frogs' in both world wars and attempting to contrast recent opposition in Europe to the Iraq war with the American intervention in the Second World War. This is so staggeringly disrespectful to the many, many French who died in those wars that it doesn't even deserve to be debated

If the French hadn't supported the American Independence in 1776 there's a great chance that America would still be part of the United Kingdom. ( An Outline of American History - Chapter 3: The Road to Independence )

FYROM has appropirated the Name and culture of Macedonia, and the rest of the world live in bliss not knowing history.

I think you mistaken, all world believes that FYROM has nothing to do with the name Macedonia (which is a Greek territory) except FYROM itself.
The site that the article links, is spreading FYROM's propaganda, but noone listens except "Vande"

It may surprise you too, that Macedonia is a Greek territory and not a country, the country that the article mentions is FYROM

Note that Macedonia is not the official or short-form name for this country. The official long-form name is The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, abbreviated F.Y.R.O.M. There is no short-form name for this country.

US Embasy Brief for Travelers To whit: Macedonia has a cash-based economy. The local currency is the denar. Few establishments accept dollars, credit cards or travelers' checks. Travelers are advised to avoid using credit cards due to numerous instances of credit card fraud.

I realize the State Department may be parroting back the same biases as banks and such.

A quick search for "+macedonia +fraud +crime" and "+macedonia +online +fraud" has it listed on almost every bank, shipping, and e-commerce site as a country to suspect. On most of the lists, it's third after Nigeria and Columbia.

The military went away from liquid fuel for logistical reasons and the Minuteman missle series, using solid boosters, were deployed. The Minuteman 3 evolved into the MX Missile aka Peacekeeper, which required only a small crew and was portable making it a "mobile missle" in some deployments.

This logistical advantage was the basis of was the basis of E'Prime Aerospace's proposed launch vehicle series in the late 1980s. Through an effort with the Reagan Administration they acquired rights to acquire the existing assembly lines, 2 of which were still packed up in crates, and managed to cut preliminary deals with the contractors for the parts. The design mods included stripping off the radiation hardening, saving substantial weight, and replacing the kevlar fiber with graphite fiber in the tankage windings, something the Air Force had already funded at about the time the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty put an end to their further development. The launch site preferred was Ascention Island due to its location near the equator, ease of access from Florida (where the production lines were to exist) and a landing strip there that could receive the stages of the rockets in separate shipping containers via DC-3 transport, and launch from a cliff to the east. There was also a problem with the upper stage of the MX containing nitroglycerine, and that stage was eliminated or modified in E'Prime's designs.

It was a good idea. Something not quite as radical was, later, picked up by Orbital Sciences Corporation in their Taurus launcher, which used some surplus MX segments. E'Prime didn't want to do that due to quality control problems on stages that had been stored -- and indeed I was told that when O.S. procured their first MX stage, it had already been rejected by E'Prime due to a huge occlusion in the X-Ray image. They obviously could never have flown stage in any mission and it is unclear why they procured it.

The company had management as well as funding problems, and when I came on board in late 1991 as VP for Public Affairs, it was a few weeks from closing its doors. I really thought the idea of putting the MX into commercial production for satellite launches was a good one and hated to see it die, especially since I had just testified before Congress regarding commercialization of space technology on the day SALT was put into action. I was already broke due to the grassroots lobbying efforts but decided to go on my credit cards and take an unpaid job at E'Prime to help save the company. While there we managed to get the first Ka band license put through the FCC for one of E'Primes potential customers (Norris Communications' NORSTAR satellite), and as a result the stock, by then it was a pink sheet penny stock, had a rebound, going from a low of fractional cents per share to 30 cents a share. I had to leave E'Prime when after a few months they still were unable to pay a salary and I was at the end of my rope. The IRS had a lot of fun with me during a subsequent audit, and they're after me again subsequent to another effort of mine, but that's another story to be written. still being written. Suffice to say I'm getting really sick of the way the US government acts toward inventors and technologists -- most of whom need to be tax lawyers these days in order to avoid prisoner gang rape these days due to the incomprehensible statutes written by tax lawyers for the rest of us to follow.

PS: For more information you may be able to get the article I wrote for "Space Technology International" annual edition in 1992, from interlibrary loan.

Not having your email-forwarding transactions recorded is a civil right? Boy, they thought of everything back in 1964!

Find for me the statement telling the president that they planned to use hijacked planes for use as missiles.

As far as the creation of the Outer Space Treaty, the United Nations didn't claim anything. A bunch of nations, including the United States and the USSR who were the only space powers at the time, negotiated the Outer Space Treaty, which they then signed up to. For the United States to approve any treaty, it needed to be signed by the President and ratified in the US Senate, which it was, unanimously.

Now, there's a case to be made that it's time for a serious look at amending or replacing the Outer Space Treaty in such a way as to encourage the private exploration of space. Far be it that the UN is somehow preventing the US from doing this, there are two ways the US could change the rules if it wanted to, and I quote:

Article XV
Any State Party to the Treaty may propose amendments to this Treaty. Amendments shall enter into force for each State Party to the Treaty accepting the amendments upon their acceptance by a majority of the States Parties to the Treaty and thereafter for each remaining State Party to the Treaty on the date of acceptance by it.

Article XVI
Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification.

Seeing that the US government has neither proposed amendments to the treaty, or considered withdrawing, the only organization to blame for the US government's continuing to abide by the terms of the Outer Space Treaty is the US government.

I think it's worth giving a damn about, especially if our troops are being put at risk in Iraq. I think it's something many of the troops would give a damn about.

You are missing the point. We are at war with terrorism, not just al Qaeda or Bin Laden. Saddam supported terrorists, including Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, the PKK, Abu Nidal, Hamas, and Ansar al Islam.. Iraq has been on our State Department's list of states that sponser terrorism for almost 20 years. The Clinton administration alledged Iraq/al Qaeda ties several times, including in this 1998 indictment. Even if Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, they were very legitimate and important target in the War on Terrorism.

It's an interesting story, but I don't think it's too likely in the wake of the commisson's report. Got a (credible) link for me?

We haven't seen the commission's report yet. The interim report that created a stir of sensational headlines last week was not from the commission- it was from a runaway commission staff, and the report's broad conclusions about Iraq/Al Qaeda ties have since been denounced by both the Chair and Vice-Chair of the commission.

Oh- and the commission has just been made aware of the al Qaeda meeting in Malaysia that the parent mentioned.

Really? Then why can't we find any?

The fact that Saddam had proscribed weapons that he couldn't account for is not in dispute.

And why aren't we attacking other countries that possess WMD in violation of international law?

No other country is in violation of a dozen unanimous UN security council resolutions requiring them to disarm. Iraq was a very logical step in the war.

'Support our troops' is a non sequitir in a debate about whether we should be at war at all.

There is no such debate. Seriously: there is no such debate.

If you're willing to overlook some blinding facts, you might be able to argue that we shouldn't have been at war... but that whole question kind of melts away when viewed in the light of the fact that war was declared against us by our enemies eight years ago, in light of the fact that one of our enemies repeatedly violated an unconditional surrender, in the light of the fact that that same enemy personally financed acts of terrorism against the United States and our closest allies, in the light of the fact that we were brutally and shamefully attacked on our own soil.

We're at war. We're at war with Islamism now as surely as we were at war with fascism in 1943, as surely as we were at war with communism in 1986. We're at war.

If you try to argue that we shouldn't be at war, what you're really doing is arguing that we should surrender. What you're really doing is arguing that we should unilaterally withdraw our forces and our diplomatic and economic pressures and allow the forces of barbarism and tyranny to sweep across the globe. What you're really doing is arguing that we have no business bringing all the weapons in our arsenal to bear against those who provide aid, backing, and safe harbor to terrorists.

If you want to make that argument, at least have the basic human courtesy of making it out in the open. Don't hide it behind disgusting, disingenuous lies about supporting the troops by bringing them home.

Argentina and Chile are pretty benign. It's a little nastier in the Central american area, Colombia probably being the worst, with Guatemala and Nicaragua behind.

When I was younger (77-82) I lived in Panama, then Colombia. Panama had the Canal Zone back then and that was completely safe. Bogota on the other hand was not. Within one month of living there, our house was burglarized (while we were out for lunch) and had thousands of dollars of jewelry, cameras, and electronics taken. Oh, and a loaded 9mm.

After that the embassy posted a 24hr armed guard on my doorstep. For every day of the next two years I had some guy in a uniform with a .38 revolver sitting outside my front door and walking me across the street to the schoolbus. The general next door to us had *two* guards with machine guns.

About 6 months later (and a few hundred miles away) we had our van broken into and more stuff taken including *another* pistol.

Most of the vehicles that the Embassy used or loaned out there had bullet-proof inserts behind the windows. Most of the moderate to high ranked Colombian officials had similar vehicles as well.

I'd still like to go back and visit again someday, but would feel rather leery staying more than say a week or so. Iraq may be worse for more personal attacks, but Central America is still pretty high risk in several of the countries. But there are many that are probably fairly safe.. I just haven't kept track of which lately. For the latest, you should check out the travel warnings put out by the US Department of State...

!!!Osama Bin Laden Had Nothing To Do With Iraq!!!!

Even if you ignore the 1998 State Department Indictment charging an Iraq/Al Qaeda relationship, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who formed the Al Qaeda terrorist group Anasr al-Islam within Iraq, and Abu Wa'el, who is a known Al Qaeda terrorist who was on the Baghdad payroll, and the fact that Mohammed Atta was trained by Abu Nidal in Baghdad. Even if you ignore all of these facts, military action in Iraq was still justified, and very necessary.

We declared war on terrorism. Iraq has been on the State Department list of States Sponsoring Terrorism for over 20 years. Saddam supported the following terrorist organizations: Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, Kurdistan Workers' Party, Abu Nidal, Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad. Russia is now telling us that Iraq was planning an attack against the US. I don't how it could be any more clear. We are fighting against terrorism and terrorist threats against us, not just Osama Bin Laden. Iraq clearly displayed a support for terrorism over the past two decades. If we did not eliminate this threat, we would be missing a crucial element in the war on terrorism. I'm glad that the leader of this country can see the threat, and has the balls to act on it without fear of political recourse.

!!!Osama Bin Laden Had Nothing To Do With Iraq!!!!

Even if you ignore the 1998 State Department Indictment charging an Iraq/Al Qaeda relationship, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who formed the Al Qaeda terrorist group Anasr al-Islam within Iraq, and Abu Wa'el, who is a known Al Qaeda terrorist who was on the Baghdad payroll, and the fact that Mohammed Atta was trained by Abu Nidal in Baghdad. Even if you ignore all of these facts, military action in Iraq was still justified, and very necessary.

We declared war on terrorism. Iraq has been on the State Department list of States Sponsoring Terrorism for over 20 years. Saddam supported the following terrorist organizations: Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, Kurdistan Workers' Party, Abu Nidal, Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad. Russia is now telling us that Iraq was planning an attack against the US. I don't how it could be any more clear. We are fighting against terrorism and terrorist threats against us, not just Osama Bin Laden. Iraq clearly displayed a support for terrorism over the past two decades. If we did not eliminate this threat, we would be missing a crucial element in the war on terrorism. I'm glad that the leader of this country can see the threat, and has the balls to act on it without fear of political recourse.

Only the Muslims? Then why does the State Department say that South America exceeds the Middle East in Terrorism?