Slashdot Mirror

Marine report

State Dept report

CIA Report

Lars,

Why don't you try educating yourself with a few pieces of information instead of relying on ideology? You will be less likely to look foolish. If you don't like the sources, the facts are generally available elsewhere.

Here are a few hints for further research:
- Invaded 2 countries
- Attacked 2 other
- Threatened a fifth country
- Killed about a million Muslims
- Filling mass graves at a rate of 10-30,000/year
- Used Weapons of Mass Destruction on own people
- Initiated use of Weapons of Mass Destruction after invading neighbor
- Tried to assassinate former US President
- Tried to shoot down US aircraft hundreds of times
- Supported terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere
- Defied UN sanctions
- Defied UN Security Council demands
- Fed people into paper shredders
- Tried to restart banned weapons programs
- Tortured, murdered, and raped as part of state policy
- Kept a large prison solely for children
- Tortured children in front of parents to make them talk
- Looted the country of on the order of $40,000,000,000
- Built lavish palaces with money UN permitted for food and medicine
- Violated cease-fire terms
- Committed numerous acts of war
- Committed numerous war crimes

All in all, a regime only the hard left, anti-Semites, or a weird Arabist could defend.

Are you one of them, or simply ignorant?

Cheers

This is a terrific solution however it does seem to invade our right to privacy. Is Peace of mind is worth seeing naked bodies of various proportions?

This wreaks of stepping on our unalienable rights. Why should our God Given rights to privacy be so unalienable? Liberty Essay

Why should we fight for our freedom?
Dred Scott's fought
The advance of freedom is the calling of our time.
Because if we don't fight we will continue lose it. Like the frog in the pot, it will slowly heat up and we will boil in your loss of freedom. Like the Nazi's took away the rights then more rights then until they finally found it convenient to take away the right to live. You would think we would have learned something. But no. We are sheep.

The terrorists caused more harm to us by causing a societal Auto Immune Disease than by their attacks. The lymphatic system of our society over- reacted to the threat to the point where the true threat is fear which for some reason, our society has propagated. The true problem was the sheep.

We need to teach our citizens to defend themselves from terrorists. We should all learn Krav Maga in grade school. But we would rather be sheep. Fat fast food eating, non-exercizing Sheep that watch too much TV.

It starts with fear. Fear is the mind killer. is the mind-killer.
Terrorists work to create fear. These terrorist succeeded in stirring up a lot of fear. Now we have to fly naked.

America used to be the Home of the Brave . We did not have fear. We were the land of the "NoFear bumper stickers"
But now we fear our fellow americans. We fear anybody we don't know who rides on the airplane with us. We fear men in turbans. We are afraid to lose our valuable sheep lives.

This is why we should be able to bear arms. An American with a machete, a machine gun, a nuke, and nifty ice9 nano particals is a Free american afraid of no one. The interesting aspect of this is that if one bears arms he is afraid of something otherwise why carry the extra weight? We should be able to bear arms but we should not because bearing arms shows that we are afraid. What arms we decide to bear is irrelevant.

Q. What are we afraid of?
A. Death, loss of life, loss of loved ones.

Q. Why are we afraid?
A. We are afraid of where we go when we die.
1. heaven? if we are going here,
what are we afraid of? cool gardens streamside with plenty of fruit? Spending eternity with our God?
2. hell? if we are afraid of going to hell we are already in hell.
3. nowhere? Ceasing to exist is like total loss of freedom. We are afraid of losing our freedom. Why give it up without a fight now. Why die the little death?

Sheep.
We are sheep.
We go where they say to go.
When they say submit to the search, we submit.
When they say bend over, we bend over.
When they say no nail clippers, no baby swiss army knife, no pointy things, do we say "We are free!!! We are CITIZENS!!! WE HAVE UNALIENABLE GOD GIVEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS/FINGER NAIL CLIPPERS!!!!!

When they say "fly naked", we will submit.
When they say take this tattoo on our hand or forehead, we will submit.
Why?

Because we are sheep.

When they say we will implant rice chips in all our kiddos when they are born and we will track their GPS coordinates and purchases for their lives, we will submit. We won't just submit, we will want it. We will demand it. Why?
Because we are sheep.

Be brave and be free. Remember the Su

I can dislike both equally.

Which is exactly the problem.

Saddam Hussein murdered hundreds of thousands of his countrymen, in cold blood, often simply because they disagreed with him, or he thought they might have disagreed with him.

Bush conducted a war in which under ten thousand people were killed. I don't like war, and I don't like killing. But in exchange, he managed to stop Saddam's murder express. By this time next year, the war will have saved many more lives than it cost.

In the end, Iraq and Iraqis are way better off then they were before the war, and the situation in their country is set to improve substantially over the next few years.

I am not saying that everything is perfect over there. Of course there are problems, and of course there are situations unfavourable to us. But at the same time, they are no longer under Saddam. They can say what they want. They can believe what they wish.

Much of the State Department opposed the war, preferring diplomatic solutions to the problem. Here is their report on the human rights record of Iraq and Saddam.

Getting rid of that beast of a ruler is, in my opinion, the best investment we could make for a better, safer middle east.

You are, of course, free to disagree with me.

But to say Bush is just as bad a ruler as Saddam Hussein is simply not a supportable argument, even as hyperbole.

D

Hey hey, I found a document proving the existence of WMD -- turns out they declared them to the UN! And that they had the ability to manufacture more! Check it out:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18130. pdf

Anthrax, Botulinum, VX... Totally awesome, eh? Better yet, the agents and methods of production were never accounted for. I'm going to contact this contest guy right now. That trophy is as good as mine.

...Estimates of the total number of persons killed in eight military offensives against the Kurds at that time vary between 50,000 and 100,000, but may be as high as 180,000.

In 2001, Amnesty International emphasized that the Iraqi Administration had the world's worst record regarding persons who had disappeared and remain unaccounted for. There were more than 16,000 documented cases of such disappearances conveyed to the United Nations in 1994 and 1995 alone.

Ok, granted that's from the U.S. state department, but they are getting information from Amnesty international (for the second part).

And from here:

...BBC correspondent Barbara Plett says the remains of up to 3,000 people had been found so far, and the total uncovered could be as many as 15,000. ...

Human rights groups believe that up to 200,000 people may be buried in sites across the country.

And another...


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi and U.S. rights investigators said on Saturday they suspected Iraq had up to 260 mass graves containing the bodies of at least 300,000 people murdered by the former regime of Saddam Hussein.


I also read the beginning of the article you posted... but even in the U.S. there are restrictions on free speech that encourages violence against others. You can't stand on a street corner rallying people to beat police officers. The press that was invaded in Iraq was doing just that - it wasn't simple dissent. Also, since Al-Jazeera is not an Iraqi news outlet, those rules don't apply....

The new law bans incitement of violence against American troops or against any religious, ethnic, or gender group, and prohibits any publication that promotes a return of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party.

Frankly, I'm not seeing the problem with that. It's interesting how much that article leaves out about publications denouncing the interim government and the U.S. presence...

The problem is that you are either a neoconservative who is in favour of imperialism (unlikely), or that you are a naive "liberal" (likely).

Guessed wrong... I am a conservative, to be sure, but I don't necessarily believe in imperialism as much as i believe in free will. For example, I disagree with socialism as a general rule, but there are examples where socialism might be a good thing - like in Iraq, where all the citizens should benefit from the oil revenue (I believe Qatar has a similar situation). There are examples where it works. I do believe any nation can be democratic if it wants to... but it doesn't necessarily have to be based on U.S. representative democracies.

Name ONE country that USA has meddled with since WWII, that ended up democratic or free.

But see, now you're placing restrictions on what I can use as an example. The fact is that it can be done - just because it hasn't been done in over fifty years doesn't mean it's still not possible. The difference with Japan, though, is that they were not allowed anything but a token military. We took care of them for decades so that a bloody military coup couldn't happen, and so that they couldn't aggress against anyone else. All the while they were free to do what they wanted within that context.

Frankly, I personally believe we should do the same in Iraq. Not only that, but we got some nicely located military bases out of it. Sadly, that's what will

Where do you get that? The closest you come is "Decides to remain seized of the matter", but gramatically that says the matter has control over the UN, not that the UN has sole control over the matter and no country can act without UN authorization. The phrase means "this topic will remain on the front burner," that's it. If that phrase meant what you say it means, that would mean the UN was the only organization with authority to deal with the September 11th Attacks.

I'll bitch, cause I think we should have finished the job in Afghanistan. Instead we diverted forces over into Iraq, and it hasn't gained us anything. That's what I was saying back last year, it's what numerous other people were saying, it was what General Clark testified before Congress saying. The choices weren't "Invade Iraq" or "Let terrorists take over", we had other options. Don't listen to the Republican spin.

Look, ultimately we were going to have to deal with Iraq because sanctions don't work. But Colin Powell admitted in 2001 that we had Hussein under control and there was no threat of weapons... link

But really that's all water under the bridge now anyway. We're in there, we've got to fix it. I don't like what's happening over there, and I'll be damned if I let the prick who created this mess be rewarded with reelection.

I'm sorry, but you are the one who is wrong. At no point did the UN security council give authorization for the use of force against Iraq. Have you actually read the text of resolution 1441, and of those that went before it; or have you instead been obediently suckling at the 'fair and balanced' teat of the neo-con media sow? UN resolutions are very specific when the authorize force; the words 'by all means necessary' are often used. There is no such phrase, or one equivalent to it, anywhere in 1441 or prior resolutions.

And if you think that the strong wording in 1441 was sufficient to authorize invasion, then tell me this: why Israel hasn't been invaded, based on the plethora of resolutions since 1967?

And if you think there was a moral case for invading Iraq, tell me this: why is Bush providing support, both diplomatic and military, for a dictator who likes to boil to death those who oppose him?

Myth: Sanctions prohibit the import of pencils, books and journals, and desks for schools.

Fact: Basic educational supplies including pencils, books, and desks have never been prohibited by UN sanctions. They have been sent to Iraq regularly since 1991 and nearly $64 million of supplies for the education sector, including photocopiers, and printing and lab equipment, have entered Iraq under the oil-for-food program.

I applied for a position with the US State Dept(feeling adventurous? They have openings!) and got a CPO (Conditional position offer). They didn't have polygraphs, but they did do most of the rest of the deal, interviewing all your friends and neighbors from everywhere you lived the past 7-10 years. Bizzaro this is, the position was working on computer systems in embassies overseas. Lots of travel, hey, I've ALWAYS loved traveling to foreign countries and learning the languages and such. Bzzzt. Penalty. Strangely enough, people who have spent long periods of time overseas and could handle traveling alone to god-knows-where on a moment's notice are the ones who have the most difficulty getting through the security exam. (I had lived in Germany, Russia and China before that) They really want people who have never left their hometown, and have had the same friends and neighbors for the past 20 years. Two things really tripped me up: Credit report (clean it up BEFORE considering applying) and possibly my at the time fiancee who was chinese. Whoops. Well, they declined. But that took TWO YEARS to make a final decision.
Interestingly, if you've ever been through the process, you can get all the paperwork they did on you through the Freedom of Information Act. Takes FOREVER thought. I got all my FoIA documents about two years after they declined me. The most interesting part of the whole escapade? In my file, among all the interview transcripts, there was a standard form (agency, location, what was reported, blah blah blah) that was COMPLETELY redacted. Talk about a freakout. What was it they know that I'm not allowed to know?!? Someday after the heebie-jeebies wear off, I think I'll frame that page and put it on my office wall.

They've let a whole pile out of Gitmo since they started that thing up. Some of them are just getting sent to Saudi Arabia or wherever to get their nuts set on fire, but most of them were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of course, none of them have ever been accused of terrorism, the only accusation anybody at Gitmo specifically gets is "you're the worst of the worst". The 13 year olds and the 15 year old Canadian they sent along for buttsex are still in there though, so don't worry.

And then there was this one. And of course, although Ashcroft wasn't in charge yet back then, I doubt he'd be more rational than the last guy.

So when DID the Senate ratify the UN Outer Space Treaty?

"On the 19th of that month the General Assembly approved by acclamation a resolution commending the Treaty. It was opened for signature at Washington, London, and Moscow on January 27, 1967. On April 25 the Senate gave unanimous consent to its ratification, and the Treaty entered into force on October 10, 1967."

http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm

...on January 27, 1967, when they nationalized 99.9* percent of everything. The UN Outer Space Treaty purports to make the entirety of outer space off limits to property, held in trust for "mankind". Supposedly, Earth is the single oasis of individual ownership in the vast communist deeps. Yes, I said communist, and I meant it! What else do you call banning all private ownership - of nearly everthing in existence? Besides pure bloody minded hubris.

This treaty is the dragon that the Eros Project is trying to slay. They are attempting to creeate case law backing the natural right to claim, take, and use unowned frontier land - even in space.

If you support private space ventures such as X-Prize, you should also support OrbDev.

"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."

No world wars in 50+ years

No world wars? Do you recall the Cold War? Or more recently, the (insert brassy fanfare) "War on Terror"?!? Just because it wasn't an all-out, killeverythingthatmoves kind of war doesn't mean that hostilities didn't occur, or that it didn't involve the "world".

Has negotiated and enforced many peace treaties throughout that time.

And it has failed to negotiate and enforce just as many. Look up a country called Rhodesia and the history of the land it inhabited. No UN intervention there, and we're still seeing the fallout in central Africa. Or better yet, look at the strength of UN resolutions at work in Israel. There have been UN sanctions for decades against Israel, and it hasn't stopped the crimes one bit.

Economic and other sanctions have had positive effects on some countries.

Such sanctions have allowed dictators to divert funds from aid programs to build military infrastructure, enabled "ethnic cleansing" such as that in former Yugoslavia, and created situations leading to attacks on the US and other member nations.

WHO has done some fantastic work in the 3rd world.

Work which includes proposing some of the most restrictive "health" laws ever seen.

Is the world's first supra-national organization and, more remarkably, has had its power seriously challenged only a few times.

First?!? Even the UN admits that the League of Nations existed. And as for serious challenges to UN authority, you can look at the record of the last 50 years to see the endless challenges and flaunts of that authority. The UN has been ignored from Korea to Iraq.

Has, respectively, saved the countries of Korea, Kuwait,and many others i'm forgetting by using multinational forces to defeat a common agressor enemy.

The UN saved Korea? The Korean War didn't end. It is still in a negotiated ceasefire, and is still a divided country. As for Kuwait, the country it was ceased to exist when they were invaded. To say that the UN saved these countries is to ignore the facts. It would be more proper to say that the UN helped to alleviate some of the destruction caused by internal or external aggressors, and in some cases aided the victimized society to rid itself of the invading force.

I'm not trying to say that the UN is a failure. However, the current political and economic climate make the organization more of a pawn to a few powerful nations than a true supranational entity charged with protecting the peace and enforcing international law. While it has contributed somewhat to international stability, it can be seen to offer selective stability, chiefly for Western nations that expect UN backing for their own whims.

</offtopic rant>

No world wars in 50+ years

No world wars? Do you recall the Cold War? Or more recently, the (insert brassy fanfare) "War on Terror"?!? Just because it wasn't an all-out, killeverythingthatmoves kind of war doesn't mean that hostilities didn't occur, or that it didn't involve the "world".

Has negotiated and enforced many peace treaties throughout that time.

And it has failed to negotiate and enforce just as many. Look up a country called Rhodesia and the history of the land it inhabited. No UN intervention there, and we're still seeing the fallout in central Africa. Or better yet, look at the strength of UN resolutions at work in Israel. There have been UN sanctions for decades against Israel, and it hasn't stopped the crimes one bit.

Economic and other sanctions have had positive effects on some countries.

Such sanctions have allowed dictators to divert funds from aid programs to build military infrastructure, enabled "ethnic cleansing" such as that in former Yugoslavia, and created situations leading to attacks on the US and other member nations.

WHO has done some fantastic work in the 3rd world.

Work which includes proposing some of the most restrictive "health" laws ever seen.

Is the world's first supra-national organization and, more remarkably, has had its power seriously challenged only a few times.

First?!? Even the UN admits that the League of Nations existed. And as for serious challenges to UN authority, you can look at the record of the last 50 years to see the endless challenges and flaunts of that authority. The UN has been ignored from Korea to Iraq.

Has, respectively, saved the countries of Korea, Kuwait,and many others i'm forgetting by using multinational forces to defeat a common agressor enemy.

The UN saved Korea? The Korean War didn't end. It is still in a negotiated ceasefire, and is still a divided country. As for Kuwait, the country it was ceased to exist when they were invaded. To say that the UN saved these countries is to ignore the facts. It would be more proper to say that the UN helped to alleviate some of the destruction caused by internal or external aggressors, and in some cases aided the victimized society to rid itself of the invading force.

I'm not trying to say that the UN is a failure. However, the current political and economic climate make the organization more of a pawn to a few powerful nations than a true supranational entity charged with protecting the peace and enforcing international law. While it has contributed somewhat to international stability, it can be seen to offer selective stability, chiefly for Western nations that expect UN backing for their own whims.

</offtopic rant>

No world wars in 50+ years

No world wars? Do you recall the Cold War? Or more recently, the (insert brassy fanfare) "War on Terror"?!? Just because it wasn't an all-out, killeverythingthatmoves kind of war doesn't mean that hostilities didn't occur, or that it didn't involve the "world".

Has negotiated and enforced many peace treaties throughout that time.

And it has failed to negotiate and enforce just as many. Look up a country called Rhodesia and the history of the land it inhabited. No UN intervention there, and we're still seeing the fallout in central Africa. Or better yet, look at the strength of UN resolutions at work in Israel. There have been UN sanctions for decades against Israel, and it hasn't stopped the crimes one bit.

Economic and other sanctions have had positive effects on some countries.

Such sanctions have allowed dictators to divert funds from aid programs to build military infrastructure, enabled "ethnic cleansing" such as that in former Yugoslavia, and created situations leading to attacks on the US and other member nations.

WHO has done some fantastic work in the 3rd world.

Work which includes proposing some of the most restrictive "health" laws ever seen.

Is the world's first supra-national organization and, more remarkably, has had its power seriously challenged only a few times.

First?!? Even the UN admits that the League of Nations existed. And as for serious challenges to UN authority, you can look at the record of the last 50 years to see the endless challenges and flaunts of that authority. The UN has been ignored from Korea to Iraq.

Has, respectively, saved the countries of Korea, Kuwait,and many others i'm forgetting by using multinational forces to defeat a common agressor enemy.

The UN saved Korea? The Korean War didn't end. It is still in a negotiated ceasefire, and is still a divided country. As for Kuwait, the country it was ceased to exist when they were invaded. To say that the UN saved these countries is to ignore the facts. It would be more proper to say that the UN helped to alleviate some of the destruction caused by internal or external aggressors, and in some cases aided the victimized society to rid itself of the invading force.

I'm not trying to say that the UN is a failure. However, the current political and economic climate make the organization more of a pawn to a few powerful nations than a true supranational entity charged with protecting the peace and enforcing international law. While it has contributed somewhat to international stability, it can be seen to offer selective stability, chiefly for Western nations that expect UN backing for their own whims.

</offtopic rant>

"Under the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, Iraqi citizens face arbitrary execution, detention, torture, rape, religious persecution and forced relocation. They face suffering and death from chemical weapons deliberately used on civilian populations. They are systematically denied basic individual, civil, political and workers' rights as set forth in Iraq's own constitution and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." usinfo.state.gov

I know, i know, it says Chemical weapons. But it really pisses me off that this post got modded up for saying that what the US does to mice is equivilent to what Saddam did to his people. If they were to quote other articles about the alleged testing of chemical/biological weapons on humans by the US then I could see it as being "Informative", but as it is its just a "Troll".

What nation still hasn't signed the Biological Weapons Convention treaty, despite being the ONLY industrial nation not to do so? THE US!

http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4718.htm#signatory

The State Department did it the smart way. Put it all in one directory and block that directory.

# tell scanning search robots not to index the older arhive pages
#
User-agent: *
Disallow: /www

Actually, if you want to learn something about Denmark, then state.gov's info on Denmark is a much more informative resource.

I recommend reading the 'People and history' and 'Cultural Achievements' sections.

A lot of good radar did for the USS Cole.

You've got it backwards.

According to the US Department of State

"The United States is unique in its approach to the allocation of patent rights. In the United States, patent rights are granted to the 'first to invent' rather than the universally accepted approach of the 'first to file.'"

"...what constitutes prior use or public knowledge -- 'prior art' - differs considerably [in the US] from standards commonly adopted elsewhere. Although subject matter described in a printed publication or patent will constitute prior art, whether or not it is published or patented in the United States, the same is not true of subject matter in public use or known to the public. In these latter cases, only use or knowledge within the United States or its territories constitutes prior art. Many countries determine the applicability of prior art without geographic limitations."

This page, down in the glossary, uses the definition you suggest. That is, it defines "times larger" as purely multiplicative. "Three times larger" means "tripled."

In contrast, Dr. Math agrees with me that "times larger" implies adding to the baseline. Dr. Math says '"Three times larger than N" means "4 * N" - but only if you stop to think about it, as many people do not.'

I think it's amply clear that "X times larger" is ambiguous without the data to disambiguate it. You have one group of people who thinks it clearly means one thing, and another that thinks it clearly means something else. It is therefore (maybe not-so-clearly) ambiguous. Dr. Math sums it up nicely:

So here's my answer: "N times more than X" technically should mean (N+1)X, but is so commonly used to mean NX that it would be dangerous to follow the former interpretation without asking questions. I haven't yet found a dictionary or other authoritative source to support one view or the other (or both, most likely).

For one thing, Kahane Chai itself is already on the list. For another, if the same thing happened with a book publisher, TV channel, or whatever this wouldn't even be on Slashdot.

• Citizens lacked both the freedom to peacefully express opposition to the party-led political system and the right to change their national leaders or form of government.
• Instances of extrajudicial killings, torture and mistreatment of prisoners, forced confessions, arbitrary arrest and detention, lengthy incommunicado detention, and denial of due process.
• Severely restricted freedom of assembly and continued to restrict freedom of association and freedom of movement.
• Religious freedom remained poor and crackdowns against Muslim Uighurs, Tibetan Buddhists, and unregistered groups, including underground Protestant and Catholic groups
• Violence against women (including imposition of a birth limitation policy coercive in nature that resulted in instances of forced abortion and forced sterilization)
• The Government continued to deny internationally recognized worker rights, and forced labor in prison facilities remained a serious problem. (So that's why Walmart products are so cheap)

No you can have duel citizenship. Not all countries allow you renouce your citizenship. For example the US makes it damn hard to renouce its citizenship. When you aquire US citizenship what happens to your other citizenship depends on the laws of that country. I have some knowlege of this in that I have 2 and soon to be 3 citizenships (and passports).
FromThe US State Department's page on being a duel national :
A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

Nevermind I am sort of wrong...

Go here:http://travel.state.gov/dualnationality.html

Sadly, in a democracy, "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. It's what the majority wants that counts.

Now, strictly speaking, the US isn't a democracy. Ancient Athens was a democracy, and the voters decided everything of importance directly, much the way Californians vote at nearly every election to decide things their legislature probably could have handled for them.

The US is a democratic republic where the voters are represented by legislators who vote on their behalf. Those legislators are only beholden to honor the wishes of their constituents as long as they care about getting re-elected.

Unfortunately, in the US, those legislators are usually more concerned with getting re-elected than they are with doing what's right or even what their constituents want. So we get government-by-special-interest, where legislators push the agendas of their biggest contributors.

So, back to the original point: In any popular vote, whether the majority is right or wrong is irrelevant. They get what they want. Only people of conscience voting against what they think is wrong--regardless of the consequences--can hope to derail a wrong-headed majority.

Also, in the US, there's this little thing called the Constitution. It's very difficult to change the Constitution and the Constitution can be damnably inconvenient when the majority wants a law passed that discriminates against a specific minority. But, as we've seen in the past, even the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution can be swayed by conventional wisdom of the day. Dredd Scott, anyone?

From official US gov't literature:

Posts may process a V visa for any applicant with a V CLASS hit
...
Names of derivatives who aged out have not been entered into CLASS as they are no longer eligible for V visas.

Actually, after looking at the state depts website, I found this.

Seems that when someone applies for a visa, gets checked out and denied, they get added to CLASS.

The champoin of freedom in a world which had become a matrix of digital prisons. The ones that stood up to it all without flinching. The Chinese...

That's the whole point of the separation of powers! That the FCC is directly answerable to the president, and can't be trivially overridden by Congress, just because Congress is "more important" than some federal regulatoru commission.

"Let's see some evidence where American money or military has gone to Rwanda since the start of this civil war."

"From the get-go, the U.S. government has provided training and support to the military leader of the RPF, General Paul Kagame. After halting the genocide and seizing control over Rwanda, U.S. military intelligence hailed Kagame as "one of the most successful guerilla leaders in African history." Despite its own intelligence reports of discipline problems, "ruthless" counter- insurgency campaigns, possible military strikes on Zaire, country-wide military training, and a "covert internal security force in civilian attire", to name a number of security concerns, U.S. officials sought to provide on-going political, advisory and logistical support to Kagame's new regime. This support came in the following ways for example:

Military assistance in the form of de-mining equipment and personnel in liu of bilateral security assistance while the U.N. arms embargo was in place;

A pledge by the Department of Defense of humanitarian assistance if the arms embargo was not lifted;

Political assistance in ending the arms embargo against the Kagame regime;

Regular presence of U.S. personnel on military operations with the RPA;

Direct military assistance such as: Psychological operations '

JCET, IMET and Expanded IMET

Training not covered under these official programs but which were described to me by U.S. military personnel on the ground at the time as counter-insurgency training (with a little "c"). Referring to U.S. special forces, one U.S. senior embassy official stated, perhaps facetiously, that the killers are here training the killers;

Hiding from the public view its knowledge of Rwandan troops inside of Zaire;

The decision taken by the U.S. embassy in Kigali not to pass on information in cable traffic relating to security matters that was provided purposefully by an array of humanitarian sources when it did not suit the bias of the embassy;

Failure to pressure the ADFL and Rwandans for consent and access for the humanitarian operations during the refugee crisis, though U.S. officials were in routine contact and present at key sites."

--- Testimony of Kathi Austin, independent consultant to non-government organizations, and Visiting Scholar, Center for African Studies, Stanford University

"What country do you live in, and what is it doing?"

Pretty much the same thing, which is why I oppose that policy as well. Backchannel arming, advising and training is nothing more than trying to exert influence for diplomatic means.

By supporting these regimes, they are given legitimacy.

"First, that's ancient history. Second, you can't fight a war on $40M divided however many ways."

Okay, we've fixed the 'prior to 1989' as 'ancient history', but you didn't even approach the state dept. licenses that totalled around $62 million in 1998 alone in arms supplies to the Great Lakes area.

Look everyone is getting in a tizzy from what appears to be jingoism. You cannot seriously believe that arming 'resistance fighters' such as the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA) doesn't actually fly in the face of a 'war on terror', and the US sent $20 million through Uganda and Ethiopia in 1996. The Sudan Peace Act allows for $100 million a year to the SPLA

If nothing, history has shown, time and time again, that such initiatives allow money to disappear or food aid to be directly supplied to soldiers rather than civilians. Not only that, but they tend to supply allies. If you don't know the geography of the region, go find a map.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) a citizen of a NAFTA country may work in a professional occupation in another NAFTA country if the applicant meet certain requirements.

and that's ethical vs not, whether it's hacking, or journalism.

Journalists are supposed to operate by an ethical code, and the vast majority do so. Journalistic ethics would say that you cannot break the law in order to get a story... though that's not say it hasn't been done. Check out this link. It would seem that ethical standards in journalism are quite flexible, and that there is no set rulebook. Instead, as in ethical dilemmas in many disciplines, one must weigh competing evils. The evil of impersonating someone, or operating under a false identity, veruse letting a politician go on with corrupt, harmful actions... which weighs more, and who decides?

By the same token, one might make the same argument for Adrian's actions. He intended no harm (as an investigative reporter might intend no harm in impersonating someone else to get a story), so the Mens Rea AKA "guilty mind" did not exist. Reporters often argue, when investigating and digging into the lives of public figures and officials, that those officials have less of an expectation of privacy than regular citizens... and to some extent they're right. Yet, how does the watchdog presume to waive the privacy of others in the pursuit of a story, while immediately running to the FBI? The media also argue that they have the right to dig, based on the fact that they are defending the public's "right to know." (how many times have we heard that?) The media assumes that power as society's watchdog... but who's watching them? Apparently, Adrian was, and they are NOT happy about it.

It's doubly ironic that an organization dedicated to exposing the truth (ostensibly in a transparent, above-board, and for-the-greater-good fashion), is getting their panties in a bunch over someone showing them some truth in a like manner. Apparently the old grey lady doesn't have a problem airing the dirty laundry of others, but is awfully sensitive about her own problems... and from an ethical standpoint, Adrian's actions are probably arguable either way.

I'm sorry, but I find this whole thing incredibly funny.

What a bunch of BS. Taiwanese people don't like being called chinese, they don't speak chinese either, but Taiyu, or Hokkien.

from the US State Department Human RIghts report

Taiwan is a multiparty democracy. The 2000 victory of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Chen Shui-bian followed more than 50 years of rule by the Kuomintang (KMT) and marked the first transition from one political party to another in Taiwan's history. The president appoints the premier, who heads the Executive Yuan (EY), or Cabinet. Constitutional amendments adopted in 1997 provided the Legislative Yuan (LY) with the authority to dismiss the Cabinet with a no-confidence vote. In 2001 the DPP won a plurality of seats in the LY in free and fair elections. In the 2002 Taipei and Kaohsiung municipal elections, an incumbent KMT mayor in Taipei and an incumbent DPP mayor in Kaohsiung were reelected in free and fair elections. In addition to the DPP, the KMT, the People First Party, and the Taiwan Solidarity Union played significant roles in the LY. The Judicial Yuan (JY) is constitutionally independent of the other branches of the political system, and the Government respected the judiciary's independence in practice.

The National Police Administration (NPA) of the Ministry of Interior (MOI), the NPA's Criminal Investigation Bureau, and the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Investigation Bureau are responsible for law enforcement relating to internal security. The police and security agencies are under effective civilian control. The police occasionally committed human rights abuses.

Taiwan has a dynamic, export-oriented, free market economy. Liberalization of the economy has diminished the dominant role that state-owned and party-run enterprises previously played in such major sectors as finance, transportation, utilities, shipbuilding, steel, telecommunications, and petrochemicals. Services and capital- and technology-intensive industries were the most important sectors. Major exports included computers, electronic equipment, machinery, and textiles. Taiwan's more than 22 million citizens generally enjoyed a high standard of living and an equitable income distribution.

The authorities generally respected the human rights of citizens; however, there were problems in some areas. Principal problems included police abuse of detainees; allegations of judicial corruption; violence and discrimination against women; child prostitution and abuse; societal discrimination against Aborigines; restrictions on workers' freedom of association and on their ability to strike; and some instances of trafficking in women and children.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:
a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life

There were no reports of the arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life committed by the Government or its agents.

b. Disappearance

There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that no violence, threat, inducement, fraud, or other improper means shall be used against accused persons; however, there were credible reports that police occasionally physically abused persons in their custody.

The law allows suspects to have attorneys present during interrogations, primarily to ensure that abuse does not take place (see Section 1.d.). The MOJ claimed that each interrogation is audiotaped or videotaped and that any allegation of mistreatment is investigated. Nonetheless lawyers and legal scholars noted that abuses most often occurred in local police stations where interrogations were not recorded and when attorneys often were not present. Police emphasized confessions by suspects as the principal investigative tool, and the judicial system sometimes accepted confessions even when they contr

No, we need more solid evidence than vague reports.

The link didn't work (I probably forgot a closing quote). The State Department's statement is here. It's from May 17, 2001.

Doesn't make a lick of difference what his objective was though, if he didn't act.

Whitney v California (1927) 274 US 357, 71 L Ed 1095, 47 S Ct 641, it was held that the constitutional guaranties of free speech and free press did not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation, except where such advocacy was directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and was likely to incite or produce such action.

This is actually a surprisingly insightful. I've seen statistics that put the number of U.S. passport holders at about 50%. The passport office only issues 5 to 7 million passports a year. I'd imagine the number of Americans who never, ever leave the country is pretty damn high. Sad, really.

Sure the American buyer may have bought an American car.. but instead of growing the economy by $32,000 he can only contribute $28,000 because he is now less wealthy than his Japanese counterpart.

So with the tariffs in place, the American buyer spends $50,000, all of which goes to US businesses and his fellow Americans.

Without the tariffs, he only spends $32,000 on American businesses, and the other $18,000 goes overseas to the Japanese.

Yeah, he may personally be less wealthy with the tariffs in place, but the US ends up collectively more wealthy.

Like so many political debates, this one comes down to the tradeoff between individual rights and collective rights, individual wealth and collective wealth, and so on.

By letting the most efficient people build the products, it creates wealth for everyone as they can spend less and get more.

That only works as long as a country's balance of payments remains fairly well balanced; i.e. money into the US = money out of the US. The problem is that the US currently has a record trade deficit--that is, Americans are buying lots of foreign products, but people abroad aren't buying American products. So money is steadily flowing out of America to foreign countries. Eventually we start to hit the problem that the population doesn't have the money to pay even the cheaper prices for the goods being made.

In the early stages, this doesn't hurt the big corporations. Many of them are incorporated in foreign countries to avoid tax, and are part of the problem. However, as things get worse, they will start to feel the pain.

Imagine the extreme case, where the US has a 90% trade deficit. Almost everything is made far cheaper overseas, so nearly everyone is unemployed, and there's no tax money to pay unemployment benefit. Sure, everything's cheap, but that doesn't help because nobody has any money to buy stuff.

As we get closer and closer to that extreme case, companies will, in fact, feel forced to move even more jobs overseas, to reduce prices so that the low paid or unemployed American consumer can afford them. The whole thing is hence a feedback loop of a particularly nasty kind. It only stops when Americans become as poor as everyone else and it becomes as cost-effective to make products in America as to make them in China.

Of course, whether this is a good thing or not depends on your perspective. In strictly utilitarian terms, globalization will ultimately do the most good for the greatest number, because it will tend to equalize average wealth in various countries. That's probably not what the average American wants to see happening, though.

So in my view, big and increasing trade deficits are indicative of a poor economy, where more and more wealth is heading overseas.

It would be remiss of me not to point out that my views are not exactly common wisdom. In the topsy-turvy world of economists and politicians, massive deficits are viewed with pride, as a sign that the US economy is growing so much faster than the rest of the world, and hence we're all so rich that we can afford to buy lots of foreign goods.

I'm happy for the reader to decide which scenario fits his reality.

Sure the American buyer may have bought an American car.. but instead of growing the economy by $32,000 he can only contribute $28,000 because he is now less wealthy than his Japanese counterpart.

So with the tariffs in place, the American buyer spends $50,000, all of which goes to US businesses and his fellow Americans.

Without the tariffs, he only spends $32,000 on American businesses, and the other $18,000 goes overseas to the Japanese.

Yeah, he may personally be less wealthy with the tariffs in place, but the US ends up collectively more wealthy.

Like so many political debates, this one comes down to the tradeoff between individual rights and collective rights, individual wealth and collective wealth, and so on.

By letting the most efficient people build the products, it creates wealth for everyone as they can spend less and get more.

That only works as long as a country's balance of payments remains fairly well balanced; i.e. money into the US = money out of the US. The problem is that the US currently has a record trade deficit--that is, Americans are buying lots of foreign products, but people abroad aren't buying American products. So money is steadily flowing out of America to foreign countries. Eventually we start to hit the problem that the population doesn't have the money to pay even the cheaper prices for the goods being made.

In the early stages, this doesn't hurt the big corporations. Many of them are incorporated in foreign countries to avoid tax, and are part of the problem. However, as things get worse, they will start to feel the pain.

Imagine the extreme case, where the US has a 90% trade deficit. Almost everything is made far cheaper overseas, so nearly everyone is unemployed, and there's no tax money to pay unemployment benefit. Sure, everything's cheap, but that doesn't help because nobody has any money to buy stuff.

As we get closer and closer to that extreme case, companies will, in fact, feel forced to move even more jobs overseas, to reduce prices so that the low paid or unemployed American consumer can afford them. The whole thing is hence a feedback loop of a particularly nasty kind. It only stops when Americans become as poor as everyone else and it becomes as cost-effective to make products in America as to make them in China.

Of course, whether this is a good thing or not depends on your perspective. In strictly utilitarian terms, globalization will ultimately do the most good for the greatest number, because it will tend to equalize average wealth in various countries. That's probably not what the average American wants to see happening, though.

So in my view, big and increasing trade deficits are indicative of a poor economy, where more and more wealth is heading overseas.

It would be remiss of me not to point out that my views are not exactly common wisdom. In the topsy-turvy world of economists and politicians, massive deficits are viewed with pride, as a sign that the US economy is growing so much faster than the rest of the world, and hence we're all so rich that we can afford to buy lots of foreign goods.

I'm happy for the reader to decide which scenario fits his reality.

Also your original post said something about an invation which is way out of line.

The US invaded and bombed Yugoslavia.

Once again you are making the claim that US increased arms sales so that turkey could kill more kurds when that's not the case at all. Arms sales to turkey were increased because an embargo previously placed was lifted.

So the embargo only limited and did not prevent arms sales? Because the US was giving away and selling hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment for decades to both Indonesia and Turkey (in the case of Indonesia, since at least the 60's).
So you are saying that these embargoes were lifted just as the violence against the Kurds and the East Timorese was reaching its climax? Were these sanctions enforced by the Security Council? Because I saw no resolutions regarding Turkey or Indonesia while the violence was in full swing. There was resolution 1319 in September 2000 condemning the violence in Timor, but this was well after much violence had already occured (which I said was because the US was actively trying to prevent the UN from doing anything about it).
But in Turkey, are you saying that all the 30,000 murdered kurds and over 2 million displaced were part of the PKK?

The oil for food program was initiated by clinton.

Yeah, and in the description of the oil for food program you'll see that all money was controlled by the UN sanctions committee (on which US and Britain had controlling sway). And as you'll see in the charts describing the transfers to the people of Iraq, water and sanitation repair was consistently blocked. These were infrastructure targets specifically attacked during Desert Storm, and they were specifically prevented from being repaired, and this would be a major contributing factor to the 5000 children per month death rate. The US and Britain prevented Iraq from repairing this equipment, in effect conducting biological warfare on the people of Iraq.

but that's better than having no source at all.

No it's not.

Right, so making something up is better than reading it somewhere. Usually reading about an incident or event in several varied sources provides more evidence that that event actually occured. I suppose your thinking is the same logic used by the Bush/Blair administrations in justifying the second invasion of Iraq.

People are dying all over the world. People die all over the world under all presidents. You seem to think that it's all Bill Clinton's fault which shows how stupid you are. People died all over the world before Bill Clinton was born, before he was the president, and after presidency. You are critizing Bill Clinton because he failed to stop death and tyranny. Well guess what nobody can. Nobody has, nobody will.

You're a pretty pessimistic person. I never said it was all Clinton's fault, but I certainly think he can share in the blame. This is evident in that Clinton was able to stem violence in Indonesia. He simply asked the generals in the US client state to cut it out when conditions were becoming unfavourable. The problem is he didn't not ask this sooner and prevent many deaths.
And there are plenty of examples where violence and tyranny was stopped. The massacre of the Jews, Roma, Homosexuals, and others, by the Nazis was stopped. Slavery in America was stopped. Violence in Timor was stopped (eventually). EU peace keepers are in the DRC right now trying to stop violence.
So unless you can provide some evidence or references to back up your claims and accusations, about history or myself, then I don't see why anyone should take what you're saying as anything more than baseless conjecture.

Uh, two words: Smoot Hawley.

Read some history

So you're saying any documents criticizing governments or warning friends about a deadly new disease are copyrighted by the RIAA? You are much more likely to find those things on Freenet than mp3s.

Your question is throwing out a red herring. Yes, it is possible to use Freenet for copyright infringment of music, but not very well. Why don't you try using it yourself? If you did, you'd know why it's such a stupid arguement that Freenet will be used for "mass piracy." The thing has enough trouble with html documents!

The free speech Clarke was talking about is obviously speech produced by the person publishing on Freenet, not some other person's song.

the idea of working on what turns out to be an ideal tool for distributing kiddie-porn just gives me the willies.

Then think of it as an ideal tool to prevent the next SARS outbreak.

Yes there is a reason communism fell, and the RIAA wants to recreate it in the US. When there is a guard posted by every copy machine, the communists will have won!

No, I find THIS ironic. Read about our good friend Ashcroft in his article entitled "Keep Big Brother's hands off the Internet"

I wasn't aware hypocrites came in his size.