Slashdot Mirror

The treaty in question in the
article you linked too had an escape clause (as anyone who reads the 2nd paragraph:

"'As provided in Article 15 of that Treaty, the effective date of withdrawal will be six months from today [December 13],' White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said in a formal statement."

The Bush Administration followed the form and letter of the treaty exactly. They made a decision to pull out of it, and the treaty allowed for that. Was it a good decision? That's another question. Does the Berne Treaty have a similar provision, I don't know - anyone?

Screw the Berne Treaty

If Bush can decide that he wants to pull out of treaties designed to keep the peace, I have no problem pulling out of treaties designed by corporations to keep the profits.

Nice source. "Howtobuyamerican.leethost.com". Try the U.S. Department of State and the additional sources they cite. (Hint: Those sources are professors, not lobbyists.)

Approved by the USA, which used Agent Orange in Vietnam, too, so big deal.

And if the USA doesn't allow us to see if they've destroyed all their biological and chemical weapons (which they, according to all evidence haven't), why should anyone else? Honestly?

And on to the rest of your post:

And they are not "Herold's numbers", as I've already explained to you: he's one of a staff of 21 researchers.

How many people Mr. Herold has running around copying down the pronouncements of the Iraqi Information Minister, al Jazeera, and other sources he lists is not really the question here. Mr. Herold has taken full credit for the `methodology' his researchers are using, and for the data sources they are tracking, and now that both of those choices have been discredited, it is he who should be answering the criticisms which have been raised. That he has not done so (or even provided enough information to allow normal peer review of his choices) is telling.

It's worth noting that one of those researchers is Dr. Glen Rangwala of the Univ. of Cambridge. Tony Blair's infamous "intelligence dossier" on Iraq was based in large part on plagiarism from Rangwala's doctoral thesis on Iraq done 12 years ago, and spiffed up by British civil servants to look like recent research. Rangwala noticed, and complained in public, so the Blair government is still feeling the fallout from that particular pack of lies about the war. That poor schmuck Colin Powell singled out Blair's "valuable dossier" for particular praise while he was fighting hard to persuade people that some sort of threat existed from Iraq. Bet he now wishes he hadn't.

While I wouldn't want to speak for Mr. Blair or his sources, your resort to insults (`poor schmuck' and the like) here certainly seems to suggest that you aren't very confident that your argument stands on it's own merits. In any case, looking over Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, I note that he did not source Mr. Blair or his dossier for any of the evidence he presented, so your case looks a bit forced, no?

Likewise, attempting to dismiss a brutal totalitarian regime with an active WMD program and demonstrated ties to al Qaeda as a non-threat is, at best, wishful thinking on your part.

But it's telling that you only attempt to discredit the Iraq numbers by attacking a single past piece of work by a single member of a team of 21. It makes me wonder why you can't find anything else to criticise about the Iraq Body Count numbers.

An interesting claim on your part, since I've shown a number of problems with the methodology and data sources Mr. Herold is using on both this project and the last one, and since he explicitly states that he is using the same long-since discredited methods as used in that `past piece of work' to analyze the conflict in Iraq...

However, this is a moot point, since as we discuss below, Mr. Herold is relying on bogus (according to every actual statistician who has looked at them) statistical interpretations of the same data as everyone else, not on independent data.

You mean "every actual statistician" you've read and agree with. Why would a statistician go to the press to say he agrees with someone's statistics? You will only ever read about a disagreement in the press, as agreement is not news. And since you can't possibly have read the opinion of every "every actual statistician" who has looked at them, I suggest you stop claiming that you have.

Are you really that unfamiliar with the concept of `peer review'?

No work in any serious field is taken very seriously until it has been corroborated by peer review, so the fact that Mr. Herold is so unwilling to subject his work to such review is far more telling than you seem to think.

Except that Herold's `attempt at a count' was (according to him) based on the exact s

"Anyone interested in the activities of secret U.S. agencies may have been interested in a segment of the CBS show "60 Minutes" about the secret involvement of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the killing of General Rene Schneider of Chile. The show aired on Sunday, September 9, 2001. General Schneider was a strong supporter of democracy. Here are links to information about U.S. interference with democracy in Chile:

"National Security Archive Chile Documentation Project

'PBS News Hour: "... evidence of a policy to undermine democracy in Chile and to support dictatorship there"

"Hinchey Report, CIA Activities in Chile This is a U.S. government document."

I can understand this for a startup company, as long as the company quickly moves to start covering the costs of its labor. But in the case of a wealthy organization, this means that the wealthy organization just *chooses* not to give economic justice. More for me, nothing for you.

I have been seeing this more and more, and it is part of what ails America. It comes from the move to give more to the investors, and comes from the blinds that are provided by corporate coverage, in which the investors can't see the plight of their workers.

But let me point out the results of economic injustice: if there is economic injustice, then the victim's investments remain unpaid, and in that case, it does not pay for the victim to invest!

In the case of inventors who can't afford to patent and defend their inventions, because the patent system only benefits wealthy corporations, the proper response is to not devote effort to inventing.

In the case where your compensation is not based upon justice, it does not pay to invest in an education that will make you a more valuable employee.

In the case where businesses are taxed to death, so that other businesses can recieve lucrative government contracts, it does not pay to start a business and help the economy: it pays to work your own garden instead.

In the case where individuals are taxed to death, to pay for more tax collectors, the farmer's strategy doesn't pay -- only the highway robber's strategy pays. If you want to see what this is like, look at Congo/Zaire.

If you think it is getting bad, and the problem is the government, then tell the government. If you don't think they'll listen, then it's better to leave, and find a better place.

Here's How.

If you think it is getting bad, and the problem is the people (yeah, they're all good people, they just, well, you can depend on them to do really evil things), then it's doubly important to find a better group of people.

Here's a hint.

If worst comes to worst, duck, cover the ones you love as well as possible, stay out of the way of wars as much as possible, and try to live with as much justice and charity as possible.

But the bible is absolutely right: when we choose to withhold a man's wages, we commit violence. When we choose economic theft as a regular diet, we commit murder. And we recreate our world to become a horror. Our spiritual failings definitely bring physical problems and death.

Just my two cents. That's all.

Link to state department page on foreign aid budget here

Canada has had a nuclear programme since the 40's. It has never had nuclear weapons. It was one of the original signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which froze the nuclear weapons club at five states: US, USSR, Britain, France and China (of course, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are now resiling from these obligations...)

After 33 years, the NPT retains its near-universal appeal. Cuba became
a party last November and East Timor reportedly is preparing its
instrument of accession. India, Israel, and Pakistan have not joined
the NPT. Israel supported the NPT at the United Nations in 1968, but
due to regional security factors has declined to become a party.
Pakistan has said in the past that it would join the NPT if India did.
India has rejected the NPT on grounds that it differentiates between
nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states. India and
Pakistan severely undercut nuclear nonproliferation objectives in 1998
by conducting nuclear weapon tests. The United States continues to
support the goal of universal NPT adherence.

Americans have adopted more than 100,000 South Korean orphans.

The website for the "State Department", notes that Americans adopt about 2000 South Korean orphans per year.

The kindness and compassion of Westerners is far greater than that shown by the Internet-connected Koreans toward Korean orphans. The current rate of adoption of such orphans declined after 1990. This decline is due to the fact that the Koreans (in Internet-connected South Korea) tried to slow down the rate of adoptions. They, and especially the Korean government, were extremely embarrassed by media coverage of the indisputable fact that the Americans show more love and compassion for Korean orphans than the Internet-connected Koreans themselves. The Koreans simply do not care about orphans.

In the early 1990-ties, Islam Karimov was a cheap Soviet-style dictator wannabee. But he worked hard, intensive surveillance of pro-democracy workers, rigged elections, and eventually, political assassinations, extensive use of torture, etc., gaining real, dictator power.

Most political dissidents have fled, notably, Mohammad Salih, who ran against Karimov in one of the elections. He was the subject of an assassination attempt, that fortunately failed. Salih is a member of the Erk Democratic Party.

After 9/11, the US has given Karimov all the support he needs to grow from a dictator wannabee to a full Saddam/Hitler-style tyrant. There is hardly any serious democratic opposition left in Uzbekistan. What there is, however, is a bunch of extreme muslim fundamentalists, so, should Karimov loose power, it is not going to be the democratic opposition taking over, it is going to be the religious extremists (which is a development we're unsurprisingly seeing in Iraq too).

When I see Tommy Franks shaking hands with of the worst tyrants on the planet, it makes me wanna puke... It is history repeating itself, it is a reminder that Saddam too was a dictator wannabee before Donald Rumsfeld went to shake hands with him in 1984.

If the US wants to have any credibility whatsoever with the war-for-freedom rhetoric, they should at least stop supporting the worst dictators on the planet.

Zoellick is a former advisor to Enron.

Colin Powell is reported in a later PR to have said "that power usually comes responsibility and some level of respect and some level of resentment -- my three R's. Hey, write that down." (Laughter.)

Presumably the laughter was coming from Mr Joe "I wasn't responsible" Zoellick's end of the table.

TWW

Zoellick is a former advisor to Enron.

Colin Powell is reported in a later PR to have said "that power usually comes responsibility and some level of respect and some level of resentment -- my three R's. Hey, write that down." (Laughter.)

Presumably the laughter was coming from Mr Joe "I wasn't responsible" Zoellick's end of the table.

TWW

The treaty "applied to outer space and celestial bodies." But the intent was to curb strategiec superiority, not research. The distinction being, we're not storing bunker busters on the moon, we're using bunker busters on the moon.

The difference is the fact that we're not planning on firing them from the moon at a target on earth. Big difference. That's what the treaty is for.

Read it yourself:

Narrative

I think it's rather humorous how many countries actually signed it. Imagine being the prime minister (or whoever signed the damn thing) of Afghanistan. Think they even read it?

Yes. In this case, regime change was demanded by the 105th Congress, in the Iraq Liberation Act. This was signed into law by then-President Clinton on October 31, 1998. Since he has now been replaced, regime change did indeed start at home - with President Bush's election.

The phrase "Saddam gassed his own people" are getting tiresome. Saddam gassed the seperatist kurds in northern Iraq.

I suppose that makes it OK?

I suspect it is repeated over and over again to somehow draw attention away from the fact that NATO member Turkey are responsible for several massacres in the same area. At least they're not killing "their own people", right?

Those of us who give money and time to Amnesty Int'l have never, in any way, condoned this. The US State Dept has also pulled no punches in its human rights report on Turkey. But Turkey, at least, has something approaching a functioning democracy. Pressure in the form of govt reports, journalism stories, and conditions on entry into the EU may slowly move Turkey into a much better respect for human rights. Nothing like that was ever going to be possible with Iraq.

What, specifically are you referring to?
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/101 6bushres.htm

People should be able to freely choose which ID systems to sign up for. If they want an ID issued by a government agency, fine. If they want an ID issued by a private corporation or individual, fine. Others can decide whether or not to recognize the ID as valid and/or useful.

In regards to passports being from a neutral government body, there is no such thing. If the government has a problem with you they can deny you a passport. As an example take a look at the bottom of the list of requirements for a U.S. passport. You see that if you fail to provide your Social Security Number the IRS may impose a $500 penalty on you. Government issued and mandated passports are an infringement on your freedom to travel.

As far as the internet infrastructure... I think that's a little premature. That's like kicking the mob-rule out of Afghanistan and then debating what fashion designers to bring in to help the women with their new look

Even the Afghani's have stopped hoping for U.S. assistance in rebuilding. Read the entire article and tell me how many references to the U.S. reconstruction efforts there are. Not like the promises weren't made. It may be different in Iraq though. They have oil.

Alright, let's go through what you're claiming here:

You and I can both be arrested with no charges, no trial or no access to a lawyer on the mere unsubstantiated allegation that we are somehow linked to terrorism.

Simply untrue. No one has been arrested with no charges, no trial, or access to a lawyer. However, those who commit acts of war illegally against this nation are subject to trial under military jurisdiction. You may not like this, you may think this should change, but you can't claim that this is something new -- this practice has existed since the earliest days of this republic (as I mentioned above, presidents Madison and Jefferson both used it, for example -- but perhaps you will tell us that the author of the Constitution didn't know what it said), and has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

What act of war have the thousands of people who have been disappeared commited?

And here you go off the deep end again. No one has been `disappeared'. Not one person. Much less `thousands'. If you want to claim that someone has, you will have to provide examples. Otherwise, you're just spouting hot air.

You, I and everybody else in the world is now subject to being taken away without charges and without recourse to the law.

Simply untrue. Show us a single instance where this has happened.

The mere allegation that I am in any way associated with terrorists allows the governemnt to take me away without any due process whatsoever.

Again, simply untrue. This is the third time you've repeated this claim in one post, but repetition is not proof.

I know at least one person through my father in law to whom this has happened.

``My roommate knows this guy, and like his girlfriend has this cousin, and like her friend heard that...''

That's your `evidence'?

There was the article about the Intel guy.

Maher Hawash (``the Intel guy'' you say, and then expect us to believe that you're familiar with the case) is being held as a material witness in an ongoing case, to testify before a grand jury. Beyond the obvious point that if he was `disappeared', you wouldn't know where he was (duh!), this is a perfectly legal procedure, and is certainly not something new (the Material Witness Statute is twenty years old).

Within a short time, Mr. Hawash will be called to testify to a grand jury, presumably about the $10,000 which he is alleged to have given to the `Global Relief Foundation', a front organization with ties to al Qaeda, which even the UN calls a front for terrorism.

As with any material witness, Mr. Hawash has full access to the courts to appeal his detention, and must be released as soon as his testimony is needed or if his testimony has not been needed within a certain time. He may also, of course, be charged with a crime before that time. In either case, to claim that a.) this is a new procedure, b.) that Mr. Maher has `disappeared', or c.) that he has no access to appeal his case is simply lying.

There are articles about the thousands who were tricked into showing up at INS centers and have now essentially vanished off of the face of the earth.

Again, nonsense. Not one person has `vanished' off the face of the earth. Some people who were here illegally have been deported when they showed up as asked to (not `tricked' as you allege). But perhaps you have a problem with this?

Look it up. Find a single scrap of evidence to contradict this.

Believe it or not, every random claim you make is not automati

"On June 2, the National Office for the Receipt of Information on Human Rights Violations in Cuba reported that workers at a popular cyber cafe had been instructed to review all outgoing e-mails and to track websites viewed by individual patrons. "

Of course you don't hear about that sort of thing happening in "The Land of the Free".

:^)

We leave our country and move to the United States because of the nebelous thing called "Freedom". Having all the relevant documents in one spot that can be studied is a fine thing.

For you who were born here, perhaps the Gettysburg address has lost its thrill, but for me, when I heard it on a recent "Civil War" showing on PBS, my hair stood on end and a shiver ran down my spine.

Especially these days, readers should re-acquaint themselves with the constitution, the bill of rights, and some of the famous speeches of past leaders. It takes a little digging to find what you need on the new site, but it's all there.

Maybe i'm a little off topic, but just thinking about what this adopted country that I love so much stands for, and the fight that we on the home front are doing to make sure that our freedoms and rights remain intact in the face of so many obstacles -- makes it all worthwhile.

While Bush may have formally pulled out of the treaty, he didn't really have a choice. Treaties require consent from the Senate. The Senate voted 95-0 not to ratify it.

Could it not also be said that by refusing to enforce any of the resolutions drafted in response to the conduct of Iraq under Saddam Hussein's leadership that the UN has made itself obsolete?

Think about this. This guy invaded Kuwait in '91. Everyone said "Bad Saddam...you must be punished! Disarm now!". So Saddam put up a farce for the first 5-6 years, then kicked out the inspectors.

When the inspectors went back in under the new UN resolution, the language of which is VERY strong (you can read it here)
Iraq was still not complying. The UN did nothing. It had done nothing for 12 years. At what point do you say "screw the security council!"?

I don't mean that to be antagonistic, but just to throw the question out there. When will the UN make itself relevant again? I believe in the concept, and that if you sign the charter that you should abide by the rulings. But...as soon as countries don't and nothing is done, the organization might as well not exist.

And everybody knows it was an accident. But okay, let's have it your way. Oh no, blood and gore! Let's end the war! Would ending the war end the suffering? Saddam would like us to pack up and go home so he could resume power and get back to the tyrant's regular business of inflicting suffering of a brutal and excruciating nature on his subjects; this kind of suffering as opposed to the comparatively few, inadvertent casualties due to the war.

Having no war in Iraq allows persecution. Having this just war is causing suffering for a time, but will end most of the suffering in the long run.

Horrible suffering like what you mentioned is imposed affliction du jour in Saddam's regime. Its torture methods include:

• Medical experimentation
• Beatings
• Crucifixion
• Hammering nails into the fingers and hands
• Amputating the penis or breasts with an electric carving knife
• Spraying insecticides into a victim's eyes
• Branding with a hot iron
• Committing rape while the victim's spouse is forced to watch
• Pouring boiling water into a rectum
• Nailing the tongue to a wooden board
• Extracting teeth with pliers
• Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents

Report on the fact that the people of Iraq don't want to be "liberated."

Nine in 10 Iraqis welcome US invasion

With a smug smile they say, "We will liberate you from your God, your money, and your dignity."

"You just arrived. You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave." - liberated Iraqi

Listen to the experience of a former human shield in Iraq:

The human shields appealed to my anti-war stance, but by the time I had left Baghdad five weeks later my views had changed drastically.
...
I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad - a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, "Bush bad, war bad, Iraq good". He looked at me with an expression of incredulity.

As he realised I was serious, he slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of Saddam's regime. ... It scared the hell out of me.

Well, it's not exactly - our priorities according to international law and presumptive custom, including Bushian rhetoric, were to strive for a peaceful resolution.

Theoretically, if we Saddam were to choose to leave, we would achieve our goals and end the war - so we're told...

Theoretically, if our efforts to kill Saddam were successful the war would be over (and Bush would be on his way to jail for violating executive order 11905)...

Theoretically. But somehow the corporate gold rush to make a buck in post annihilation Iraq suggest that there was never any real possibility for peace, no matter what Iraq did.

"Oil is too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs." - Henry Kissinger

OF something is classified then it now becomes a crime to mirror the data.

The Constitution, the justices asserted, has a "heavy presumption," in favor of press freedom. The Court left open the possibility that dire consequences could result from publication of classified documents by newspapers, but said that the government had failed to prove that result in this instance.

And were talking a Jack booted Homeland security breaking down your door sort of crime.

A government has a valid need to keep things secret [...]

It quickly becomes apparent to any person who has considera[ble] experience with classified material that there is massive overclassification and that the principal concern of the classifiers is not with national security, but rather with governmental embarrassment of one sort or another.

[...] now with that being said we do still need ballance and this looks like nothing more than keeping things in the closet duing a war.

Then why are you against taking out the man who kills more children than anyone else? Saddam Hussein kills more children before lunchtime in a single day than will be killed in this whole war. If your heart cries out for the murdered innocent children, you need to be for this war! Saddam has used bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents.

Your way of "peace" only allows the merciless persecution and impoverishment of Iraqis to continue. Why is the justification for this war so hard to understand? Saddam has killed over 100,000 people. This is a rescue mission. It is a war of compassion to end a holocaust.

You wanted to give diplomacy more time?

"You just arrived. You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave." - liberated Iraqi

Listen to the account of a reformed anti-war protester who went to Iraq:

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

War solves nothing... unless, of course, your company is selling to Defense...

Or owns somebody calling shots in the administration. Take a look at the administration's press transcripts from yesterday. Haliburton apparently got a slam-dunk on a contract of undisclosed value, and Ari won't even talk about it.

n top of everything, most of the powerful people of the bush administartion (such as Cheney, Powel and Rumsfield for example) were important people in the reagan administration.

not so.

this may be ot but the parent was modded up, so...

Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense under Gerald Ford. He left public life in 1977.

Cheney was a US Congressman from Wyoming during the Reagan administration. He was White House Chief of Staff under Ford, and Secretary of Defense under Bush I.

Powell was in the military until 1993.

Americans call him president. Iraqis call him savior.

"You just arrived. You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave."

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

It's really telling that you direct that statement (I quoted at the very top) toward Americans and President Bush and not Iraqis and "President" Hussein. (Of course, most Iraqis do not actually call Saddam "President" ... well, okay, not willingly.)

The actions of shocking genitals, medical experimentation, crucifixions, and using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents merely qualifies Saddam Hussein as "not an angel." Meanwhile, the actions of leading the charge to use force to STOP those atrocities does not, in your mind, outweigh whatever other comparatively petty objections you have against George W. Bush, in qualifying him as an "a*hole." The fact that President Bush is at the forefront of this mission of emancipation and war on terrorism makes him all the more praiseworthy. Don't think I'm a Bushie yes-man. I strenuously disagree with the president on some of his foreign policy, but this war is just and necessary for peace. The cost in human life of this war will be high, but the cost of not going to war has been and would continue to be much higher.

Don't mistake courage and decisiveness for arrogance. However, even if Bush were arrogant, that does nothing to diminish the reasons for the war: national and world security, prevent terrorism, Iraqi liberation, stop oppression.

President Bush is not defying the United Nations. You see, the United States is essentially the executive branch of the U.N. It is the only entity in the world truly capable of fulfilling this position. The U.N. has no armed forces, and therefore, no way to enforce its resolutions when countries want to defy its will. Even if there were a U.N. military, the U.N. would be too cowardly to use it. Using aggressive force goes against the tragically flawed, international elitist philosophy that diplomacy can solve every possible conflict in the world. As a result, the U.N. is useless. Its words have no impact because it will not back them up.

The U.S. is not defying the U.N.; it's doing the exact opposite. The U.S. is enabling the U.N. to fulfill its goals. Bush is trying to put a backbone in the U.N., but the U.N. is hell-bent on being irrelevant. The U.N. said that Iraq needed to be disarmed, and if disarmament could not be achieved through diplomacy, then "serious consequences" would be necessary. After seventeen resolutions against the Iraqi regime and twelve years of diplomacy, the situation is worse than when we first began. The U.S. is fulfilling the U.N.'s wishes by volunteering to disarm Iraq by force.

If any one is

• http://www.space.com/news/eu_gps_020326.html.
  
• http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/cwes/EUC/EUC_Research/Pol itics_of_Galileo/politics_of_galileo.html
  
• http://www.galileosworld.com/galileosworld/
  
• http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/8673.htm
  
• GPS http://ifen1.bauv.unibw-muenchen.de/Lehre/External /SpaceTech/GPS.pdf.
  

These links are from a file I have of info on Galileo. Hopefully no link rot.

Roadmap for War on Iraq and the New American Empire brought to by:

Elliott Abrams , Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney , Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes , Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld , Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

xyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzy

They tried diplomatic pressure and other means with America alongside. It didn't work.

But it did work, in the end there were results and that's why a lot of countries wanted the weapons inspectors to go on with their work. If there is proof, that the Iraq has a significant number of B- or C-weapons the USA never presented it. In the end the Iraq was complying (though grudgingly) with the demands layed down by the UN. In the meantime north Korea more or less publicly announced their intention to produce nuclear bombs, so shouldn't Bush et al. strike at north Korea before going for the Iraq?

So when Bush couldn't convince the world that Iraq was threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction he switched rhetorics and talked about having to free the Iraq of that evil dictator Saddam. Now Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, but that's none of the USAs business, as it hasn't been for the past 20 years (like when the USA even supported the current Iraqi regime). The last demand that Saddam now leave the country within 48 hours is not an ultimatum, it's a joke. Everyone can imagine that that'd be suicide for Saddam.

This war isn't about terrorism either, it's easier to construct a link from Osama bin Laden to Bush than to Saddam Hussein, and war isn't a means to get at terrorists who're probably not even in the attacked country. As a result of the war even more terrorist attacks are expected in the US and the threat level is raised.

So the war isn't about chemical weapons or terrorists, neither is it an idealistic mission to free the Iraq people from their evil dictator (or do the USA now intend to attack any country where the government isn't to their liking?). Many people (even inside the US) see it that way and that's how they arrive at the conclusion that the war isn't justified but is just about oil and distracting the american people from their problems at home.

This war is also a very bad precedent, as it shows that the USAs government doesn't care what the UN have to say on the issue, they do what they damn well please anyway. So now whenever any country wants to start a war all they need are some unsupportable and made up reasons and then they can go ahead? Or is that only right for the USA but noone else?

Also the arrogant way the USA dealt with the UN and other nations (and also opposition at home) has weakened the UN and hurt diplomatic relationships worldwide. More and more the USA is percieved

Well, it seems the US government isn't too comfortable with that and tries (german link) to make (german link) the EU abandon that project. Naturally the EU doesn't like depending on a US-monopoly for such an important system.

Lindh is considered a citizen because the government chose not to exercise its right to hold him as an unlawful combatant, just as the government routinely chooses which crimes to prosecute, and what charges to bring.

For a summary of Supreme Court cases concerning the renunciation of citizenship, see this page at the State Department, which cites a number of cases. The cases themselves should be easy enough to look up on FindLaw.

It is (or was) the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. GWB pulled out of the treaty in December of 2001 (here) in order to build the National Missile Defense. So putting lasers on 747s is all good. Unilateralism rules! I am going to put a laser on my car so I can protect the US against terrorist and rouge nations.

Private businesses can request your SSN if they want... you don't have to give it though. But if you don't, they don't have to give you whatever you're looking for either :)

However, UT is a public school and is subject to the restrictions on government agencies... here's a page with some info on the use of SSNs in public schools.

Anyways, as a former UT Austin student, I'd be annoyed if my SSN was one of the ones that got out... and if so, I wonder how UT plans on contacting me--as far as I know, they don't have my current address, phone number, or any other type of contact info. As a side note, the first year I was there (1988), a lot of professors posted exam grades outside the classroom indexed by SSN... I guess someone put a stop to that :)

This will change your mind.

Why does the US defend Israel so much, anyway?

I speak for myself and many Americans by saying that support for Israel is a matter of obedience to God.
In Genesis 12:1-3, God told Abram (later renamed Abraham):

"Go to the land I will show you.
I will make you into a great nation (Israel) and I will bless you;
I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

Prior to the outbreak of the war with Iran in September 1980, Iraq's economic prospects were bright. Oil production had reached a level of 3.5 million barrels per day, and oil revenues were $21 billion in 1979 and $27 billion in 1980. At the outbreak of the war, Iraq had amassed an estimated $35 billion in foreign exchange reserves.

The Iran-Iraq War depleted Iraq's foreign exchange reserves, devastated its economy, and left the country saddled with a foreign debt of more than $40 billion. After hostilities ceased, oil exports gradually increased with the construction of new pipelines and the restoration of damaged facilities.

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, subsequent international sanctions, and damage from military action by an international coalition beginning in January 1991 drastically reduced economic activity. Government policies of diverting income to key supporters of the regime while sustaining a large military and internal security force further impaired finances, leaving the average Iraqi citizen facing desperate hardships.

"Only one percent of the earnings of illicit drug trade is earned by the farmers in developing countries," Emafo said. "It has been estimated that 50 to 66 percent of drug trafficking profit is made in developed countries where most of the illicit drugs are consumed," he
said.

AI [Ansar al Islam] is a terrorist group operating in northeastern Iraq with close links to and support from al-Qa?ida. Al-Qa?ida and Usama bin Laden participated in the formation and funding of Ansar al-Islam, and AI has provided safe haven to al-Qa?ida in northeastern Iraq. AI?s predecessor, Jund al-Islam, was formed in September 2001. AI came into being with the ?blessing? of bin Laden after its leaders visited al-Qa?ida in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001. Bin Laden provided AI with an estimated $300,000 to $600,000 in seed money.

Ok, that's the introduction, here we go:

First, let me state that the alternative to war is not to do nothing. It is to do things more constructively, build rather than destroy.

Let me also state that I'm not in the "it's the oil" crowd. I think Bush honestly believes that he is on a God-given mission as the World Leader to save the world. But I didn't elect this moron, and neither did you. Unelected leaders are dangerous, regardless of who didn't elect them... :-) Especially when they're fanatically religious...

First, a bit of history: US officials visited Saddam in 1984, to restablish diplomatic ties, as Saddam was in a war with Iran, this was a great opportunity, and these officials saw no reason why they shouldn't establish diplomatic relations. Well, of course they knew that Saddam had been a despot since he seized power in 1979, and they knew full well that he had used chemical weapons against his own population as well as in the war against Iran.

But, what the heck, this war against Iran, that had to be supported, regardless of some puny WMDs. The delegation leader's name was Donald Rumsfeld. Yep, these guys are old pals. Cool, eh?

Where were you when Amnesty reported that Saddam Hussein tortured and murdered unknown tens of thousands of Iraqis when your current defence-head shook hands with him?

The problem with Saddam had been much easier to solve if the US had put some pressure on Saddam in 1984, rather than supporting the dictator. The US gave him the position he now has. And guess what, dictators sometimes have their own agenda. Who would have thought?

OK, so you can argue that old mistakes are no reason to stand down now.

True. But you have to realize that you have to do things differently than you did before.

Well, what happened in Kosovo, that's an example of the success of intervention? Well, I don't know about the murder rates right now, but the number of killings before and after the bombings were pretty much the same. No real improvement. Strengthen democracy? They can't even elect a president now, because everybody thinks that the whole thing stinks and nobody shows up at the elections. Yep, we'll just bomb some more in 50 years when tensions rise again. Slobo was thrown out? Sure, but at the 11th attempt. With Slobo in power, Yugoslavs tried to throw him from power over and over again. The silence from the rest of the world was overwhelming. Nobody cared, nobody listened. Half a million of the elite who were at the forefront in trying to overthrow him left the country in dispair. If they had been given just a little support, the whole catastrophy may have been avoided. As it is now, it is just a matter when the region explodes again.

If Saddam had actually had WMDs that were a threat, then urgent action may have been needed. But the evidence put forward by US administration sucks badly. It consistently falls apart on examination. Besides, it is backed by blatant lies and misinformation, that has no other purpose than scaring people. Such as "given enough high-grade uranium, Saddam can makes nukes within six months". Well, yeah, I'm a physicist, and I can do that too, but I wouldn't need six months!

At the same time, the same mistakes are committed over and over again. There are some of republics of central asia that are not democratic at all. In fact, they are highly oppressive. Even, it may be getting worse while we're watching. But, because they're now "allies", we're looking the other way, instead of supporting those working for democracy. It's the same story over again. It is the same reason why the US supported Iraq and Saddam, why they now support the oppressive regimes in particulary Uzbekistan and Kirgistan. They're only making it worse. Are you looking the other way now, because you president says that you should? Then please don't come shouting for bombs in 20 years from now!

It is time to think things over, and take a different path.

There is a huge, well-educated middle class in Iraq, and they are the key to overthrowing Saddam. Making sure that these people can start thinking about politics again rather than worrying about getting food on the table or a US bomb down their chimney is probably the best thing you can do to forward democracy in Iraq. They allready have to worry about Saddam's agents, so removing a couple of worries can only be a good thing. The problem is, Saddam knows it, and his power is now so well established, supporting those is going to be really, really difficult.

There's another path. Iran has made huge progress lately, pretty much in spite of US efforts. Most of the Iranian population is really young, and they don't want to take any more bullshit from the old moronic fundamentalists.

There is also a bunch of forward-thinking academics, who is not afraid to challenge the theocracy, and many internationally minded scientists.

Not long ago, Iran joined CERN. Yep, that's the european nuclear research organization. Those who are thinking "nuclear, iran, scary!" are missing the point, and need to RSFH (read some f* history).

Empowering these people in Iran is very likely going to light that candle of democracy in the region that Bush is talking about. Without bombs, without a war. Without USians becoming subject of hate all over the world. Without sacrificing human rights, like pretty much every US intervention has done in the past. It is going to bring about change made the people themselves, it is going to empower people in the entire region, possibly in the entire world to bring about change. It is what can make tyrants tremble.

You know, there are success stories when it comes to peaceful transitions, take Guatemala for example, Bolivia had also an extremely corrupt and violent government but popular uprising did the trick there. To some extent, the wide attention that South Africa got helped the transition there. Military action is not, and has never been the only way. But looking the other way, has never helped.

You're going to spend something like $50 billion on war, very likely. Imagine what you can do with those money, if you instead make an investment in empowering the people who wants to see change?

I was a kid when Iraq when this happened, but I found a history of the Iran/Iraq war. The bottom line is: Saddam was financed during the period of its worse attrocities by the United States administration.

In fact, every time the CIA has overthrown a democratically elected government, it has made the situation worse for the population. In Chile (where Allende, the popular elected president was deposed and assasinated in a state coup, and Pinochet assumed power), in Iran, where the democratic government was overthrown by the CIA. The Sha's government was brutal. The brutally went to the point that a religion uprising lead to the extreme muslims to take the power again.

Given past history (and who could forget the five continous US administrations that lied to the american public, and manufactured evidence to wage a war against the Vietnamese), I am more than reluctant to believe that there are any moral reasons to wage this new war.

If morality were the real issue, why not begin by taking Ariel Sharon to the world court for his crimes in Sabra and Shatila.

The supposed buildup against Saudi Arabia was manufactured evidence. Also, the story of the babies in Kuwait: that was also a lie.

Now, since you feel so strongly about the gassing of the kurds. Tell me how you feel about the five US administrations that used agent orange and destroyed Vietnam?

You know that the US agreed to pay reparations to Vietnam, and has to this date not paid a cent?

Stop watching FOX news, it will burn your brain ;-)

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

• work seriously toward nuclear disarmament;
  
• abide by the biological and chemical weapons conventions;
  
• repudiate "preemptive" war plans;
  
• repudiate "regime change" doctrine;
  
• cease interference with the inspections process;
  
• acknowledge the Israeli nuclear program and cut off aid until it can be inspected and dismantled;
  

First, the point is not simply to disarm S. Hussein and Iraq, it is to wipe him and his regime off the face of the planet. It is to humilitate him utterly and dissuade anyone else from attempting to emulate him. The Mussolini treatment would not be inappropriate in the least. It is to put a functioning free government in place that will scare the crap out of neighboring despots. "Disarmament" comes as a corollary.

Well, well, as luck would have it you appear to be a faithful believer in many of the extant themes of the Invasion of Iraq morality play. While it is believable that the Hussein regime will be largely removed, it is childish and short-sighted to believe that it is possible to "wipe him and his regime off the face of the planet." He and many of the highest-echelon members of his regime will most likely be eliminated, but from a certain level downwards, current members of the Iraqi government, armed forces, and civil service will remain. Why? Because American forces are stupid? Because they are in collusion with them? No, because it is the easiest and most practical way for the banal drudgery of government to continue after an invasion. I suspect you will be rather disappointed when that occurs.

If you think part of the point is to humilitate him utterly and dissuade anyone else from attempting to emulate him. The Mussolini treatment would not be inappropriate in the least, then you evidently believe those sorts of things actually do dissuade tyrants. My personal view is that you are mistaken, and I wonder whether you can adduce any credible evidence to support those beliefs, but I will not debate it further.

It is to put a functioning free government in place that will scare the crap out of neighboring despots. "Disarmament" comes as a corollary.

This, tragically enough, is your most important mistake. I wish as much as you or anyone else that this were a likely outcome. It is not, and the second half of the last century is littered with false hopes, broken dreams, poverty, misery, and arbitrarily tortured and disappeared individuals in many countries. I suspect the best we can hope for is for the new Iraqi regime to be significantly less savage than the current one. I don't think we can realistically expect much more. As to scaring the crap out of neighboring despots, I can only hope you are not referring to the monarchies we suppoert in the area to control Persian Gulf oil production. It is precisely that system of client management that the war is meant to support and defend.

My last point is indeed false, as you point out. The sort of threat represented by the likes of Al Qaeda is not one that we can neutralize militarily. As you point out, it must be done on many fronts. And that is why I pointed out this fallacy. As you say, not many people believe it (or so I hope) yet we are concentrating a lot of money on the military solution. That, as it happens, is an important clue about what the wizard is doing behind the curtain. That brings me to the final point I will make (I am at work, and I am not paid to write rants on slashdot).

...the point is not simply to disarm S. Hussein and Iraq

The disarming of Iraq is but an incidental purpose. If you follow the money, you will find the more compelling ones.

Last time I checked, it was the United States that were waging war. Iraq just sits there exporting oil.

Then check again. UNSEC resolution 687 defined the conditions for ending the Gulf War. Iraq has refused, for the past 12 years, to comply with them. If Iraq were to comply, the sanctions imposed by the UN would be lifted and the Allied Coalition would be able to stand down. Their non-compliance is, in effect, a continuation of the war.

Besides that - where's your proof that they do have any WoMD at all?

Two things. First, we've got tons of proof. Read Dr. Blix's 1/27 report to UNSEC for examples of that proof. (Skip down to the section entitled "VX Nerve Agent.")

Second, the burden of proof is on Iraq to demonstrate that they do not have WMD, and to allow UNSCOM (now UNMOVIC) to verify their claims. They have categorically refused to do this.

And more will be dead if you won't let them import medicine. Right now, they are performing operations without any anaesthetic because they can't get enough medicine.

Oops. That's an oft-repeated by false assertation. In fact, UN sanctions have never limited Iraq's imports of medicine, school supplies, food, or other humanitarian goods or contributions. Quite the contrary; the UN has urged Iraq to order more medicines, but Baghdad has refused. The Iraqi government has been roundly criticized for hoarding medicine for military use instead of distributing it to their people, then blaming inadequate medical care for ordinary citizens on sanctions. Unfortunately, a goodly fraction of the world media has fallen for this lie.

Please refer to the State Department's "Myths and Facts About Iraq" page for more information.

The Kuwait invasion was ten years from now, right? You've already attacked them for that. Get a new excuse.

Please educate yourself on this subject. A few minutes research will reveal that Iraq has never settled the Gulf War. We don't need "a new excuse" because we're still trying to deal with an old problem.

(Try googling for "resolution 687." It's a good starting place. In it you'll be able to see what Iraq is required to do, and from there you should be able to learn about Iraq's 12-year history of non-compliance. Or, if you prefer a summary, you can just read this post.)

In 2002, the US DEA was quick to claim that opium was a prime source of Taliban funding.

But back in 2001, the US government gave the Taliban $43,000,000 dollars in exchange for destroying the opium crops that had previously supplied a major portion of their GNP.

(Never mind that "Transacting with the Taliban" had been illegal for US citizens since 1999. I don't see any of Bush's administrators being arrested for helping the Taliban much more than John Lindh ever did. It seems ignorance of the law is an excuse.)

Now that the Taliban has been deposed, the flow of Afganistan opium is starting to resume.

Read it, it's hilarious

The relevant passage says:
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? Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide?

You people have got to WAKE UP!

We're drowning in evidence. Iraq is building a reactor. For what? Why do you suppose the most oil-abundant nation in the world has been feverishly investing billions of dollars in nuclear reactors? (And Iraq's GDP in 2000 was just $6.6B.) Concerns about fossil fuel emissions? This is the madman who set oil wells on fire at the end of the Gulf War which burned for many months (years?) spewing black smoke into the atmosphere.

See the first item on this page, Iraq: Failing To Disarm
Videos, audio, pictures, slide shows, and transcripts. Featured are Secretary of State Colin Powell's 76-minute presentation to the U.N. and a "60 Minutes" interview. The first hour of Powell's presentation is about Saddam's WMD and his systematic means of deception to make fools of U.N. weapons inspectors. The last 16 minutes are devoted to Iraqi terrorist connections, which is the main kind of evidence for which you are asking.