Slashdot Mirror

You do realize that my previous comments, which included large amounts of factual information were largely ignored by you, right?
Let me point a few:
1, By international law, the so-called occupied territories are not occupied at all.
2. Most Palestinians live under PA and Hamas control. Both of which violate basic human rights on a daily basis; a fact that's completely ignored by so-called human right groups.
2a. Unlike their PA and HAMAS controlled brothers, Israeli-Arab (Read: Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship) enjoy full civil rights (including the right to vote and be elected)
3. In a series of peace threats Israel redraw on a number of occasions from so-called occupied territories, treaties that were largely violated by the Palestinian side. (E.g. Stopping state sanctioned incitement for terror acts in PA controlled media and schools; Stopping state sanctioned terror acts; Changing the Palestinian treaty to acknowledge Israel's right to exist [...], etc)
4. Each time Israel withdraw from so-called occupied territories (with or w/o a peace treaty) the Palestinians immediately launched a wave of terror in return which usually targeted targets (like my Supermarket...).
5. In most cases, the attacks originated from Palestinian Civilian centers, relaying on Israel's reluctance to attack civilian targets. ... and I can continue.

Now, would I think different if I was sitting in Gaza right now? Most likely I would. Should it matter, as -my- house is being attacked by rockets fired from so-called Palestinian territories and when -my- Supermarket was blown by a suicide bomber killing and injuring dozens of civilians? Not really. ...Neither would you.

The only thing standing between us and peace is Arab recognition of the Jewish people's right to its own independent state. As the Palestinian still bluntly [1] refuse [2] to accept [3] our presence [4] here [5], peace could not be further away.

Last question? Might I inquire where do you live?

- Gilboa
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni
[2] 10 point plan (which objects to SC 242), Official PA page in the UN site: http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/pid/12354
[3] http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/abbas-rejects-jewish-state
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPsOe9yRqTU
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GueURvTbIss&feature=related

.int is a valid TLD today. See http://www.nato.int/ and http://www.un.int/

And I can only repeat that this is incorrect. Only the Security Council can undo the cease-fire and authorize force.

Its obvious that we are getting nowhere with this. I am just going to leave you with some excerpts from Resolution 1441 that I think make the Security Council's intention clear:

• Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
  
  Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
  ...
  Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
  ...
  Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)
  ...
  Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council
  ...
  Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

From these excerpts, we see that the council:

• Directly tied the implementation of 687 to the authorization to use force in 678
• Stated that the cease-fire in 687 was based on Iraq's compliance of that resolution
• Officially finds that Iraq was in material breach of 687
• Gives Iraq one final chance to comply or face "serious consequences"

I accept that some people may disagree that this amounts to the Council authorizing the invasion, and I respectfully disagree.

I'll also pose my question yet again. Given that international peace and security are worse and show no immediate prospect of improving, at what point the Security Council must take action to correct it? Perhaps the third time is a charm...

Maybe the third time I answer this question will be enough as well. The Security Council has taken action multiple times to address the current threat to international peace and security in Iraq, including a mandate for a multinational force in the country. There is pretty much nothing more that the Security Council can do.

I have no problem with giving credit (whether positive or negative) to other states for their participation. However, the "multinational force" and "coalition of the willing" folks don't want to be honest about the participation of the other nations.

I think this is a forced perception more than it is reality. Who do you think is being dishonest about this? I think most people are fully aware that the United States, second to the Iraqis themselves, bears most of the burden in Iraq. I also think that it is significant that 48 countries have either directly participated or provided support for our operations there, and I don't think that is dishonest in any way.

So, like the "war on terror", this is a never-ending eater of American tax money and young soldiers? "Preserving" has no end. You have defined a war that can never be won and will never end, but in defeat. Wow.

Your previous post alluded that creating a process for getting out of Iraq equaled defeat. Yet now you say that the US already won the war. So is this "preservation of victory" a new war? When are the American soldiers allowed to go home?

Of course there is an end. We withdraw our troops propor

I'm suprised nobody has brought up the ethical issue about the use of Coltan. I guess I will. Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltan/ Apparently the is a "blood diamond" situation going on in the Congo with the mining of tantalum ore. Also miners are cutting down trees in "protected" gorrila habitats. The ore is now supposedly certified as conflic free, but that is probably just bs like the diamonds. More info # "Millions have died for our cell phones" from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting: http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=276 # UN Coltan Explainer: http://www.un.int/drcongo/war/coltan.htm

1. I don't have "canned responses" for everything; this was the only post in this story (and I've had many, as you can see, most of which are modded down simply because people don't agree with their content). I acknowledged they were previous quotes of mine from just a few days before; why should I retype something that addresses the exact issue at hand?

2. globalsecurity.org is hardly a right-wing propaganda aggregation service. You'd find the identical information at, for example, FAS. globalsecurity's job is aggregating information on global security. Are you alleging that globalsecurity.org has ulterior motives? I've NEVER seen or heard of it referred to as a propaganda source before by anyone. (I suppose things like truthout and commondreams (or the Rolling Stone) are "hard news" to you?)

3. I've never posted on Free Republic or anything like it.

4. I didn't vote for Bush in 2004, and most candidates I have voted for since I've been voting have been non-Republicans (mostly Democratic candidates).

5. I'm not "part" of any propaganda. I love how people such as yourself can't stand those with views that differ from your own. Anything that supports or contributes to those views is propaganda, and indeed the ideas themselves are propaganda.

Also, what you said about Iraq with regard to WMD is bullshit. What I said is true as of 2003. Yes, there were widely varying opinions on what this meant and what action should/could be taken. But UN 1441 is proof enough. It was passed by the whole of the Securty Council, and no one was under duress. Read it. But I suppose now even UNSEC resolutions are "propaganda" to you.

First off: WMD was a term created to mean "something bad that isn't a nuke"

Sorry, that's not true. It is an internationally recognized arms control term that encompasses nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons, and loosely, weapons capable of indiscriminately killing large numbers of people. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention of 1972 explicitly includes biological and chemical weapons. Do some reading. Here's a reasonable place to start.

It's also untrue that no one believed Iraq had WMD. The US did. The UK did. The UN did. Much of Europe did. Since such large quantities of weapons were unaccounted for in 1998, and every indication was that Iraq was continuing in noncompliance, especially when all UN-required oversight was gone, there was no reason to believe Iraq DIDN'T still possess the WMD it was still KNOWN to be in possession of (or couldn't prove were destroyed) as of 1998. The UN never had full access to facilities. And yeah: by 2003, Iraq may not have had any WMD left. It had conveniently all left the country. While much of that might be aged and useless in any event, the swarm of binding, in-force UNSEC resolutions (678, 687, 1441, etc.) made it clear how Iraq was supposed to behave, at the urging, and indeed, requirement, of the international community.

But none of this is really the point, which is that there are a lot of people who think the US (and/or West (usually UK)) is exclusively what's wrong with the world, simultaneously failing to see the potential for anyone else to do extreme things that could have global implications.

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security"

Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

I was thinking about it, and then I remembered that there was the *.int domain.

BTW, http://www.un.int/ does work as well, and is the "actual" URL for the UN as an international agency.

Nothing else to see here.... move along.

The United Nations
The European Union
NATO
Interpol
World Health Organization
International Civil Aviation Organization
The International Telecommunications Union
The Red Cross

I don't know what to say about this one though:
International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR)

And more: Google it

Not to mention the sloppy rules for registration:

To register in the .int domain, the applicant must be an intergovernmental organization that meets the requirements found in RFC 1591. In brief, the .int domain is used for registering organizations established by international treaties between or among national governments. Only one registration is allowed for each organization. There is no fee for registering an .int domain name.

The tribes were giving money to Democrats before Abramoff got involved. He told them to give to Republicans and they stopped giving to Democrats. Abramoff (and K street) are about as Republican as they come. The "the remarkably bipartisan nature of the beneficiaries of Mr. Abramoff's largesses" is flat out a lie, and I suspect you know it.

It seems that the fact that the tribes gave more money to Democrats when the Democrats controlled both houses of congress, and switched to giving more money to Republicans when Republicans took control of both houses of congress seems dark and sinister to you, but to anyone with less of an axe to grind, does it really seem even passing strange? The question, after all, is not of who took money from the Indians; it is of who Mr. Abramoff was able to buy off by brokering specific contributions for specific votes. It should come as no surprise to anyone who is not laughably partisan that Mr. Abramoff found eager takers of his clients' money on both sides of the aisle.

In any case, the issue isn't who they gave money to, it's who brokered the sale of votes.

Um, no. By now, the fact that Abramoff was brokering votes is old news, sealed with an indictment. The question now is not who was buying votes (Mr. Abramoff), but who were selling them (a remarkably bipartisan crowd).

I have no intention of going off onto whatever "legalist" side ally you're talking about.

Then I suggest you drop, once and for all, the talking point that `no Democrat has been indicted for taking money from Mr. Abramoff', as this is true only in the (narrow, legalistic) sense that no member of either party has been so indicted.

On the WMD issue, you are entitled to your own opinions, of course, but you are not entitled to your own facts. In UN Security Council resolution 1441, the entire Security Council voted unanimously that Saddam Hussein had not complied with 12 years of UNSC resolutions demanding he disarm. That's right, unanimously -- not a single `no' vote: not France, not Russia, not China. This is hardly surprising, of course, since the intelligence services of France, Germany, and Russia had all concluded that Saddam had WMD, and an active program to produce more.

Our allies abroad were not alone in this, of course. Bill Clinton had reached the same conclusion, authorizing air strikes based on this in 1998. At that time, both parties united in support of that conclusion, and both parties united again around UNSC resolution 1441.

Prior to going to war, Mr. Bush presented a 23 count indictment of Iraq to the US congress, and asked for authorization to use force. One of these 23 counts was Iraq's WMD program (absurdly, the anti-war crowd seems to have no argument with the other 22), a charge which was backed with public evidence presented to the Senate and House, and private evidence presented to the House and Senate intelligence committees. Not a single Senator or Congressman asserted that they had been given insufficient evidence to decide if Saddam had WMDs. Not a single Senator or Congressman asserted that the President was withholding evidence. The resolution authorizing force passed both houses overwhelmingly.

For you (or John Kerry, who has since admitted that he failed to show up for fourteen of sixteen Senate Intelligence committee briefings on Iraq) to now claim that Senate Democrats didn't know what they were voting on or didn't bother to examine the evidence they were presented hardly reflects poorl

www.un.int, of course.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

There's the resolution you pointed to (1441).

Please explain to me the part where it says "The UN Authorizes any member state to invade if these terms are not met," because I'm just not seeing it.

In fact, the only UN resolution to ever authorize military force (with relations to Iraq) was 660 / 678, in response to the invasion (AKA Gulf War I). These resolutions did not grant the rest of the world a free hand to invade at will. They were written to allow force to be used to restore Kuwait. Not invade Iraq.

So, I ask you again, where does Resolution 1441 state what actions may be taken by member states? Where does it authorize the US/UK to invade and occupy? Yes, Iraq was in material breach of said resolution, but most people outside the White House and Downing Street acknowledge that Resolution 1441 was no basis for invasion. It was, if anything, equivelant to Resolution 660: A statement that there's a problem. You then need something like Resolution 678: actual authorization to invade. Otherwise, you're just making the rules up as you go along.

You say the UN never wanted to enforce this resolution. I ask you, when did the US / UK even try to get a resolution passed to authorize their invasion? Colin Powell comitted political suicide at the UN and still no resolution was passed. Maybe that has something to do with the 'factual' nature of pre-war intel.

No, actually, they're not untrue.

And 1998 was mid-sanctions, long after the end of the Gulf War.

This has no bearing on 2002 and 2003 specifcally, granted, but the point remains.

I also didn't say that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.

What I do know was that Iraq was in continuing and egregious violation of numerous binding and in-force Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions, so whether or not Iraq attempted to purchase uranium again after 1998 is irrelevant.

Further, I said "indirectly". Wilson's wife most certainly had a hand in offering up his name. That she called the Niger report "crazy", and then her own husband went to investigate said claims, raises what we call a conflict of interest. An appearance of impropriety, in the same vein as concerns raise about DeLay having his spouse work on his campaign. There may not actually be any impropriety in either case; it is the appearance that is critically important.

Why do you think Plame is involved in this in the first place? It wasn't because the administration wanted to "get back at" Wilson by vindictively ruining his the career of his wife who is completely unrelated to the events; the whole reason she was ever an issue is precisely BECAUSE she was working in this specific area at the CIA and had a hand in offering/suggesting/promoting/etc. her husband for an investigative trip on this very topic. Even DailyKos in its "debunking" story acknowledges her involvement. The administration wanted to use this appearance of impropriety to discredit Wilson's claims.

Let me just reiterate: the whole reason Plame's name came up was because of the direct and close involvement of her husband here with her own workgroup and her own specific area of work; if she was a CIA operative working on, say, signals intelligence for the Indian subcontinent, her name never would have come up.

I'm not saying it was right. What I am saying is that it wasn't just random pettiness. If Wilson's wife had nothing to do with this at all, her name would never have come up, no matter who mentioned it first. But it was her own workgroup in the CIA who sent her husband to Africa to investigate this "crazy report" (her words). If you can't see a conflict there (but do in the case of DeLay, for example), you've got partisan blinders on.

...perhaps it's because the "international organizations" we work with, like the UN, can't even keep their word and uphold the tenets of their own charters for things that are much more important than the root servers?

Also, no one said anything about al-Qaeda.

Except you, of course.

But the US believes that the root servers are important enough that they should be under the control and purview of the same entities that have been their stewards in some cases since the literal inception of DNS itself, rather than an organization along with international entities that may not have the same level of experience. This isn't just about "keeping machines patched" or knowing how to run a DNS box. That's the most vanishingly small part of this equation.

Also, it might help to remember that the US, along with its vast military-industrial complex, the Department of Defense and DARPA's investments into pie-in-the-sky technologies, and our massive academic research establishment are what you and the entire fucking world HAS TO THANK for the "internet", and we've already proven that we can manage the root servers and have a secure and well established network of capable contractors, so I think that, given the geometrically increasing importance of the internet to the US and its economy, you're damned straight we have a vested interest in making sure critical internet infrastructure is properly administered (and by "administered", I don't mean from a sysadmin perspective).

And while the corporations with the root server contracts make some money and might not want to see that go away, this decision is NOT for "making more money for some corporations". It's been made for the security of these critical infrastructure pieces. In our own system, we have some accountability and we know it. Even if ICANN meets the DoC-set guidelines, there are no guarantees that its capability and contingencies are better than, or even meet, the capability that already exists in the prevailing arrangement. Why ratchet back from predictability and reliability, and a known set of variables, frankly, to "please" the international community? The "internet", in general, was not an international creation. It was a US creation, the result of a lot of investment and research dollars from the exact entities that no one else would have supported. The fact that it has easily become an exceedingly open international and global tool is a testament to its creators.

I'm starting to get fed up with the anti-US dick waving on slashdot, really...

Mod me as you like, but please think at least for a second about what i said.

I don't even know if int is around anymore, amensty.int doesn't seem to work

".int" has an organizational purpose. It's for major international organizations, like the United Nations the the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Confederation of Independent States (the former USSR) and the Organization of American States.

That wasn't the litmus test. It was U.N Resolution 1441 which was approved by all members of the council.

Some tidbits:

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,


Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material

Note that the requirement of the cease fire was that a full detailed disclosure of all weapons programs (which did exist, as proven by the U.N Inspectors). Hans Blix up until they left still would say that Iraq was cooperating on location checks, but that they wouldn't give any new information about their programs.

I am not mistaken. I was in Ireland last April when boys were coming home in bodybags.

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.

I wonder how the U.N. will determine which countries will be able to lay a claim to it? Will it be a first come first server? Will it be a 500km radius rule from wherever a base of more than 5 people exists? Or will be similar to Artic allotment where Argentina, the US, the UK, Japan, Russia, Malta, and Denmark share a "slice" of the pole?

Don't get me wrong, I think space exploration is a a great thing and definately the kick in the pants that our economy needs now that we have finally defeated the terrorists.

What do you think?

I have no military service, and I'm too involved in school to sign up now, but I feel I wouldn't be doing my part if I didn't add my two cents in here.

I don't like President Bush. I think he is a short-sighted, uneducated, intolerant redneck, and it frightens me that he has the ability to launch nuclear missiles. But saying that this war is wrong or that it is illegal simply does not make sense. If there is an intelligent argument against this, I have yet to read it.

Your argument does not make sense.

To accuse President Bush of war crimes and not accuse Saddam Hussein at the same time is as massive MASSIVE hypocrisy. Look at the mass graves. Look at the soldiers dressed in civilian clothing, firing on coalition troops. Look at the countless incidents of Iraqi soldiers feigning surrender only to fire on coalition troops who were willing to show them mercy. Look at the thousands of Shiite Muslims who were killed by nerve gas on Saddam's orders after the first Gulf War. Look at the torture chambers that have been found. Look at the incidents of Iraqi troops firing on unarmed civilians, fleeing the horror of the war. Look at the stockpiles of humanitarian aid that were gathered up and never distributed to the people of Iraq. Look at the squads of professional rapists Saddam used to torture women and children. The list goes on and on. There are too many to name.

Your argument does not make sense.

It saddens me that people can be so blind to how simple this is. You disgust me. UN Resolution 1441 states very clearly that the point was never to "find" biological or chemical weapons in Iraq; the point was to prove whether or not they are there. And it states in no uncertain terms that absolute and unquestioned cooperation was demanded of Saddam's regime. Resolution 1441 can be found here.

Resolution 1441 also notes many previous Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, of which I've counted four that explicitly declare Iraq in violation of the cease-fire of the first Gulf War. There are others that deal with humanitarian problems caused by Saddam's regime, and property stolen from Kuwait (which I might add was never returned or repaid).

Look further at the reports from UN weapons inspection teams, complaining of Iraq's failure to cooperate in the terms set out by Resolution 1441. Unconditional, unrestricted, unquestioned cooperation was demanded, and it was not received. I should probably mention that Iraq *eventually* cooperated with most of the things demanded in Resolution 1441, but the very fact that they cooperated "eventually" constitutes a material breach of the resolution.

Your argument does not make sense.

For every point you try to make to prove your case against the war, twelve can be brought up to prove otherwise.

Today is a great day for the world. Saddam Hussein is not worth the bullet it would take to shoot him. He is an evil, violent man who would eagerly put every man, woman, and child in the world under the control of his equally evil and violent regime, if only he could get his hands on weapons powerful enough to allow it. But you accuse President Bush of war crimes?

It doesn't make sense. It is untrue, and unfair. It is a lie, and it is hypocritical.

Read the facts people. I've tried very hard to understand the opposing viewpoint, but the only explanation I can come up with is either the silent support of terrorism and atrocity, or gross GROSS ignorance to the facts of the matter.

I'm sorry for making this post so long, but I have a lot to say on this matter. Don't believe protest groups, don't believe presidents or politicians, and don't believe France. Read the UN resolutions and reports from expert committees appointed by the UN. After you've read those, see if you can come up with a reasonable argument using facts, not slander.

God bless America! God bless Iraq! May freedom ring so much farther than from sea to shining sea. May it reach so far and ring so loud that even the most ravaged and brutalized nations of the world hear it as clearly as we do in America.

~Knautilus

This pretty much summarizes all of your misconceptions about the UN:

And I won't go into how the members of the UN aren't elected and are appointed and aren't out to better the world but (usually) to their country.

Ummmm, duuh. That's why the title for the human being who sits behind the "UNITED STATES" placard is "Ambassador". Like all of our ambassadors he is appointed and it is his job to represent our country. Strictly speaking, Ambassador Negroponte isn't a member of the UN. The United States is a member of the UN. Ambassador Negroponte is our representative to the UN. Like the rest of our Ambassadors, our Federal Judges, and many other positions in our country, he's appointed, not elected.

The UN is a place for all of the nations of the world, even ones who are at each other's throats, can get together and try to work things about. Convincing everyone to stick around is a tricky job and means you have to be absolutely even handed, even if being even handed seems stupid. The big picture is that it's important to keep these people talking so we can try and move forward through peace. Judging a country evil and throwing them out isn't going to convince them to shape up. They'll still be evil, but they won't be talking to us. For example...

Where but the UN can countries with tons of human rights violations be on and chair commities to end human rights violations?

Anywhere where you want to be inclusive. Is it worth throwing them out and risking the delicate political structure that brought them to the table? There isn't any risk of these countries pushing some evil agenda through the Commission. There are 53 member countries. Do you think at least some of them might stop such an evil scheme? Furthermore, who has the authority to judge the acceptability of a potential member. Do we need a Commission on the Commission on Human Rights to screen potential members? And a Commission on the Commission on the Commission to screen them?

International politics is hard. Just getting everyone to the table is hard. Don't dismiss that effort out of hand.

God Bless America, with the worst crime levels in the first world

Except for Sweden, New Zealand and Denmark. In fact, the US has about an average per capita crime rate as the rest of the world, according to the UN

God Bless America, where "democracy" means a rich, white male as President

Who serves by the will of the population, is limited in the length of term and whose powers are tempered by two other branches of government. A president who transfers power peacefully, something that has been done every four or eight years for over two hundred years. Incidentally, America is a democratic republic. When did China have its last free presidential election?

God Bless America, the biggest consumer of the world's natural resources

Actually, the "problem" is a first world issue, not an American issue. Per capita, America is not a leader. Look to Japan.

God Bless America, so happy to violate international laws

Riiiiiight. Let's see. America violated international law by...uh...hmmm. By...hmm. Oh, you mean by invading Iraq? The one that appears to be authorized by UN Resolution 1441? Hmmm...

God Bless America, where "freedom of speech" means race-hate groups like KKK

Yes, and the ACLU and the Sierra Club and the NAACP and Greenpeace and any other organization that criticizes the government. Freedom of speech is not freedom to act. You clearly do not understand what freedom of speech means. To limit one organization's speech because you do not agree with it is to open the door to limit anyone to make the same claim about any organization. Of course, China doesn't have that problem. When you disallow freedom of speech, you only have to worry about the hate groups that keep quiet.

God Bless America, and its massive and ever-growing poverty gap

America's poverty rate in 2000 was the lowest in 26 years. It has only slightly increased, from 8.7% to 9.2%. Recently, NPR reported that instead of people spending vast periods of time in poverty, they tend to move out of poverty in a period of a few years, but others, due to a variety of reasons, move into poverty, again, generally, to move out in a few years. This, of course, is in contrast to China's poverty rate...11.2% in urban areas, darn near 100% in rural areas.

God Bless America, with barely 300 years of dire history and culture

The world's oldest, continously functioning representative democracy. America has managed to overcome, in less than 300 years what China, with over a thousand years of history has not.

God Bless America, all its appalling "sitcoms" with no grasp of irony

OK, I guess I can accept this as a strike against America...

God Bless America, with the highest obesity levels in the developed world

One of the pitfalls of freedom of choice is that one is free to make personal choices that are bad for you.

God Bless America, because corporations should be allowed to run amok

Actually, corporations are not allowed to do that. A tiny bit of research will show you that in the end, they do get caught.

God Bless America, wasting billions to attack foreign countries

Like Tibet? Like Nepal?

God Bless America, and thank God I don't have to live there.

And the final difference between the US and China? In the US, nobody has to live here!

-h-

Here is the text for all interested. It's an important read for those concerned with the international political situation.

Bad choice on using the .int TLD. It IS A REAL TLD.

For those that read the post but might not have understood the correct usage -- please do *not* use .int as a TLD for internal purposes -- .int is a valid TLD (see http://www.un.int , http://www.worldbank.int , http://www.wto.int , etc.). RFC2606 specifies that you can use .test, .example, .invalid, or .localhost, which makes sure that you don't conflict with other TLDs. It is fine to use ".int" (or anything else) as a host name or subdomain, such as "hostname.int.example.com", just not as a TLD ("host_name.int" or "hostname.example.int").

Yes, how could Americans not see the value in a bloated bureaucracy that is not elected and is accountable to no one? I thought there was a revolution fought over those same principles...

The UN is an international, democratic and very open organisation that is accountable to each of its member states, the government of those member states and ultimately the people who elect those governments. The US representative to the UN is an ambassador, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, just like any other official in the administration. In fact, you can read all about it on the section of the UN website maintained by the Department of State. Of course, reality is not as interesting as conspiracy theories about how the UN is hell-bent on conquering the world and taking away your right to bear arms.

This one's not new, but rather is one of the "special" TLDs, alongside .gov, .edu, and .mil. Its used for International Organizations, such as the United Nations.

.int is used for international entities. I've seen it here, and the UN. Unfortunately, its not available for sale, otherwise I would have so tried to get 'unsigned.int' ;-)