Slashdot Mirror

Well, first, I was specific about the standard of living that revolves around the poverty line which is often defined by a percentage of the median income levels compared to the income distribution among the people (per capita). So for a comparison in this case, it is quite appropriate. The poor are much richer in the higher per capita countries. They not only seem to have more money, they also have more goods and possesions which you seem to think skews the comparisons. That fact is, that is the comparison I was attempting to make, so it is possible I just used the wrong terminology.

As for canada, You can compare the differences with America a lot easier then you can with China for example. Lets look at the per capita with canada. You see, your about right when you say Canada has as high if not hirer SoL as the US. But when you look at the actual production, you will see they are slightly more then the UK's production. You can say what you want but you proved my point.

I was going to put together another little calculation that showed that actual increase Co2 emissions withing a given country and how it parallels with population growth and standards of living withing a country. Unfortunately, I can't find my links that shows internal Sol within each country compared and the formula breaks down quickly when you compare India and China. However it seems accurate with Canada, the UK, AU, and US. adding the percentage of increased SoL to the percentage of population growth seems awfully close to the amount of Co2 increases since 1990 (non-per capita measurements).

oops, couldn't make the link work, compare US vs Qatar.

Americans are tree hugging hippies

Try searching for 'weapons of mass destruction'... and then try and tell me the data's bad!
And here's another example...

Try searching for 'weapons of mass destruction'... and then try and tell me the data's bad!
And here's another example...

That's because China has 5 times the population as we do or more. Here is one on usage without the per capita BS. Something else to remember, the data stops at 2004 for some reason. A lot has been going on in 4 years. I doubt any of those numbers are close to accurate today.

Personally, I'm not sure why the per capita really comes into play without population density.But either way, the problem is supposedly Co2 not Co2 per person. Take a look at Australia when I add it to the ops chart. Notice how AU is listed at 15 or so and produces less Co2 then the UK as to the previous chart. Well hell, even India is misleading. It is the lowest with 1 on the per capita chart and they produce more Co2 then the UK and AU put together.

Now I am going to suggest something that most people want to ignore, look at the countries on the lists with a low per capita rating and think about the standard of living compared to the higher ones. And I don't mean how rich people charter choppers to goto their kids little league softball game. I mean the person at the poverty line who has a car, TV, cell phone, Air conditioning, Cable TV in some cases, compared to people living in those low emission per capita countries.

That's because China has 5 times the population as we do or more. Here is one on usage without the per capita BS. Something else to remember, the data stops at 2004 for some reason. A lot has been going on in 4 years. I doubt any of those numbers are close to accurate today.

Personally, I'm not sure why the per capita really comes into play without population density.But either way, the problem is supposedly Co2 not Co2 per person. Take a look at Australia when I add it to the ops chart. Notice how AU is listed at 15 or so and produces less Co2 then the UK as to the previous chart. Well hell, even India is misleading. It is the lowest with 1 on the per capita chart and they produce more Co2 then the UK and AU put together.

Now I am going to suggest something that most people want to ignore, look at the countries on the lists with a low per capita rating and think about the standard of living compared to the higher ones. And I don't mean how rich people charter choppers to goto their kids little league softball game. I mean the person at the poverty line who has a car, TV, cell phone, Air conditioning, Cable TV in some cases, compared to people living in those low emission per capita countries.

Interesting! Some of these tables have a "select pivot column" while others don't. Luckily the ones I first looked for turned out to be pivot-enabled!

Anyway, if there is a select pivot column above your chosen table, you can make the data of that column be used as a field.

I can't seem to find any pattern so far that tells us whether a particular table will be pivot-enabled or not. Anyone got that one figured out?

If you really would have been interested in the source, you would have seen the BIG BOX below the data that says 'SOURCE' with a short description and a link ORIGINAL DATA that links to the organisation that provided the data. and after 2 minutes of browsing, I found this: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749 where you can find information how the data was collected.

stop whining, start looking. thanks.

Its there for anyone who cares to look, eg. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods.htm

This kind of statistics that I can actually link to while making a point... That's about as innovative in my book as wikipedia was. This will forever change how geeks discuss things.

"At first I agreed. But now I don't. And it is because of retaliation."

Note that according to Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that is a human rights abuse and should be prosecuted as such; it's the sign of a sick governmental body that can't manage it.

I would say "Because the US has an overdeveloped military that has a tendency to act in foreign countries", but that would be an easy jab. I worry for the health of your democracy because it has long been held as the portrait of a country done right. I don't like when perfectly good countries go bad. Didn't like the post-Gorbachev Russia either.

We already noticed your conception of America was wrong, I'm willing to be your looking at the wrong picture for the portrait.

That "nothing" largely depends on which side of the bullets you are. Luckily I am on the side, where they don't fly. You are right in some aspects - Guantanamo is not a concentration camp nor an industrial installation for killing people. The war of aggression against Iraq (using flawed intelligence many experts pointed out as that, including the UN envoys, to further the interests of economic groups) is not, seemingly, the same as what Hitler waged in Europe.

Well, actually, I thought we were discussing what bush has done in power and to get power not the actual actions. If we are going to go outside that administrative scope, then nothing needs to be changed to very little. War with Iraq was done soundly too, I mean Saddam himself admitted to claiming he had a WMD program because he though other countries would invade Iraq. Very little of the inteligence and actions for going to war was flawed though, Maybe the ones used but as pointed out on several occasions as well as a vote by the UN, Iraq wasn't in compliance with the Cease fire agreement which basically says the first Gulf war was on again. Lets, remember, the reason for showing an interest in Iraq in the first place was because of it's invasion into Kuwait over what was admitted by Saddam himself over the Kuwaiti official calling Iraqi women 10 dollar whores. And no, the war wasn't to further the interest of economic groups. There is more of that opinion being stated as fact again. You really have to watch out for that.

Besides, the so called UN envoys didn't make such statements officially. UNSCUM's reports said it was inconclusive, there were missing stuff, stuff they were finding that had supposedly already been destroyed, and after the invasion, the reports from the inspectors identified 2 buildings damaged from the bombing that had chemical agents that were supposed to have been destroyed already. But don't take my word for it, read the UNMOVIC's documents directly. It hardly paints the picture of nothing to see here, move along now. Pay close attention to the november 2002 through 2004 quarterly reports in particular. The are the report right before and right after we went in. But by all means, read them all and you will see that they don't paint a nothing to worry about picture as it is presented by the Anti War crowd.

But they are no shining beacon of civility either.

They aren't as much of a black mark as it is being presented either. Half if not most of what is being said is nothing more then speculation and opinion. Very little in the way of facts.

Not with this kind of consequences.

What exactly are these kind of consequences? If your going to say the worlds opinion, I would counter with that it appears they are getting their opinions from the Basher's who aren't presenting things factually and are injecting opinion as fact into the presentation. If your really thinking of the worlds opinion, I would say the bashing has done more to damage it then Bush himself.

And, by the way, I don't need to justify my opinions. As you well point out, I am observing all this from the outside. You may take my opinion or disregard it. I don't really care. You are only one person who is reading this exchange.

Well, I would say that you do need to justify them. I mean you didn't keep them to

How about not placing artillery and missile positions in densely populated civilian neighborhoods? That way you don't get bombed.

From the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

One workaround is for technically civilian agencies like police and so forth to use them instead. Another is to classify an operation as "other than war".

Treaties are amusing, but there is no logical reason not to use non-lethal agents in fighting, so I agree with working around rules like the above. If its fine and dandy to kill and maim someone, it is logically fine and dandy to use non-lethals to lessen the level of violence.

UN forces using tear gas:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=10768&Cr=liberia&Cr1=

I doubt we'll see anyone prosecuted for using non-lethals instead of firing into a crowd. :)

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/3/214326.shtml

How is this consistent with the US supporting the UN chemical weapons convention? http://www.cwc.gov/ http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/cwc/ "The Convention prohibits all development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, transfer, and use of chemical weapons. It requires each State Party to destroy chemical weapons and chemical weapons production facilities it possesses, as well as any chemical weapons it may have abandoned on the territory of another State Party"

That sounds great for a small town of about 600 people. But there are hundreds of millions of potential voters

As with many large problems, this is addressed in actual elections by breaking the problem down into pieces of manageable size. These happen to be around the size that the AC mentioned. In Canada, "polling divisions" average 352 people each. In Afghanistan, it's 600 people per polling station.

But if you acquire Antigua citizenship, even a lawyer will have to think hard:

http://www.un.org/esa/gopher-data/ga/cedaw/17/country/Antigua/C-ANT1-3.EN

There is a lot of happy news with this story. People in the least developed countries get xo machines paid for by those in the US and Canada more able to pay. Classmate PCs provide cheap laptops to (possible) less advantaged students in Mexico and Brazil, paid for by the IMF.

Intel and Microsoft both face a challenge. For many years available computers have been inadequate to the tasks at hand. As the computers become more agile, and their markets more broad, there has been increasing demand for premium computers and software. The two companies have built great brands by offering increasingly effective platforms. Moore's law marches us persistently into the future however, and the premium price earned by these brands no longer equates to a better experience because the underlying technology has improved so much that the premium brands offer little advantage over the commodities.

Of the two, Microsoft has the bigger challenge.

Intel can push for rationalization of IP laws. This will free up a great deal of high-density video data that will drive a renaissance of mashups that let the common geek produce content in HD for GooTube and stroke his ego. Content creation can be the driver for a new generation of demand in processing that will tide Intel over until they find a new reason to sell their high end 32 core 17nm chips. Resolution will continue to increase until we all have photo-realistic 90" displays, and then maybe hologram tech will come out. Intel will do fine.

Microsoft, OTOH, hasn't put out decent code in over a decade. They've been exploiting their monopoly to force their product down peoples throats for so long they think that's their mission. They have forgotten that people choose them because their software helps people use their computers to do stuff. Now that the basic problems of document management and data mangling are solved, they have nothing left but branding. Their brands are increasingly associated with bloat, DRM and nagware. Every software package they sell is a hook to drag you deeper into a relationship where they provide all the software and have all the control. They are terrified of choice, and they should be.

As the emerging markets come online they'll choose piracy or open source -- they will not consider paying full rate for commercial apps. Like Ballmer said, "Developers!" (Repeat until you pass out).

The standard percentage of these folks will have the wiring and desire for programming. I think they'll like gcc and Eclipse. Those of us in the developed world find it easy to forget that intelligence is a Bell curve and those coming online lack the distraction of learning a hundred misbegotten failed technologies like .net 1.0. These systems are the battleground for ownership of the global IT market of 2020, and from where I sit it looks like change. Change can be good, no?

Could you please give a strict definition of these Human Rights (TM) that you love defending so much?

As for the issue of "equally", the new Japanese law mandating the fingerprinting of foreigners is discriminatory and is unacceptable. In particular, the law exempts Korean citizens who reside permanently in Japan but who refuse Japanese citizenship. Roughly 45% of these "refuseniks" pledge their allegiance to North Korea. They send their children to special schools which teach their students to sing the praises of North Korea.

These Korean refuseniks deliberately refuse Japanese citizenship because they want to maintain their "Korean-ness". They believe that blood determines both culture and nation of loyalty. They are loyal to either North Korea or South Korea.

The Korean refuseniks have harbored this intense racist bigotry for decades. Since the early 1990s, this bigotry began to fade slightly, and the number of Koreans applying for Japanese citizenship has increased from 5000 annually to 10,000 annually.

In today's Japan, there is no discrimination against Japanese citizens of Korean ancestry. There is, however, justifiable discrimination against Korean citizens or any other person who lacks Japanese citizenship: for example, a Brazilian citizen of Japanese ancestry does not have the same privileges that a Japanese citizen enjoys.

The Korean refuseniks are exempted from the fingerprinting requirement because, in the 1980s, the Korean government demanded that the Japanese government end the fingerprinting of Korean citizens who refuse Japanese citizenship. The Korean government insisted that Tokyo fulfill this demand before the Korean government was willing to improve relations with Japan. As a result of this interference by the Korean government in Japanese domestic politics, Tokyo ended the fingerprinting of Korean refuseniks. The Korean refuseniks are also exempted from the fingerprinting in the new Japanese law just passed by the Japanese parliament.

There is a huge difference between Korean refuseniks and Americans of African ancestry. Some Korean refuseniks are descended from people who were forcibly brought to Japan during World War II. However, many Korean refuseniks are descended from people who voluntarily came to Japan during and after World War II. By contrast, nearly all Americans of African ancestry are descended from people who were forcibly brought to the United States. Yet, while the Korean refuseniks voluntarily refuse Japanese citizenship (that they could easily get), all Americans of African ancestry gladly want to be American citizens.

The attitude of the Koreans is utterly racist and bigotted. By contrast, most Taiwanese citizens who chose to reside permanently in Japan have conscientiously wanted (and obtained) Japanese citizenship.

In summary, the new Japanese law mandating the fingerprinting of foreigners is discriminatory and is unacceptable because the law exempts Korean refuseniks. Tokyo should ignore the Korean government and should resume fingerprinting Korean refuseniks -- especially Korean refuseniks who pledge their allegiance to North Korea. (The Korean government has been a far bigger pain to Japan than the Mexican government has been to the USA.)

Why must you turn Slashdot into a house of lies?

Current UN peacekeeping operations.

MINURCAT: all European, half of them French.
MONUC: a wide variety of nationalities, none American; largest contingent is from Pakistan.
UNOCI: troops principally from Bangladesh, Bénin, France, Ghana, Jordan, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan, Sénégal and Togo.
UNMEE: 1,500 of 3,300 troops are from India.
UNMIL: various nationalities, none American.
UNMIS: again many nations, none American.
UNAMID: not in Darfur yet, but among the nations stating that they are likely to participate you will not find the USA.
MINURSO: many nations, none American.
MINUSTAH: principally Brazilian, with other South American nations providing the rest.
UNMOGIP: no Americans.
UNMIT: no Americans though Wikipedia does list the US; maybe there was one guy who's since gone home.
UNFICYP: no Americans, troops from many nations led by Argentina.
UNOMIG: this is the first one I've found where there ARE Americans, though the bulk of the force seems to be Russian.
UNMIK: substantial American presence, 3,000 of the 16,000 troops in Kosovo. At the height of the operation the US provided 7,000 of 50,000, just ahead of Germany on 6,000 and equal to France, but well behind Britain's 19,000.
UNDOF: Austria, Canada, India, Japan, Nepal, Poland, and Slovakia.
UNIFIL: no Americans, largest contingents from France, Germany and Italy. UNTSO: has some Americans, can't find a breakdown by nationality, but the total strength of the force is 150.

So, er, yes. Thank you, America, for your great contribution to UN peacekeeping operations worldwide. Now we see why that colossal defence budget of yours is good and necessary.

The UN should be more concerned about:

Getting a solution to Iraq/Afghanistan

International law and terrorists, making smaller countries comply

Making the UN more constructive and productive so we don't think they are an expensive ineffective joke

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

"(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible."

How about upholding basic human rights as put forward in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights charter of the UN?

Would that work for you, Mr. Philosopher, because you seem more interested in the moral relativism of something rather than the fact that it violates some fundamental precepts of human dignity?

Perhaps the book is written to indicate how much better science is now. How many wonderful controls we have. And of course it would be correct. Except for the Texas A&M biological research lab that was closed for making mistakes that a high school science student learns not to make. Or that we routinely subject out children to unscientific studies in education, nutrition, and marketing just to see what will happne. Or we continue to sacrifice huge number of animals with little scientific justification, because they are animals and have no right not to be sacrificed.

Perhaps this is the similarity between Tuskagee and most continuing research that the parent was looking for. The participants in the study were not considered human persons, but but merely humans without the rights of a person. Just like few would have a problem with sacrificing baby monkeys to study the effects of drugs during pregnancy, who would have a problem with this experiment? Are animals not there to serve the human person? This is a very convenient philosophy which allows to live with collateral losses, torturing enemy combatants, and spewing deadly substances into poor neighborhoods.

Every now and then the same myths about the Japanese mobile market come up. Here's what we've seen on Slashdot today:

1. "Japanese live in small houses, have small fingers, and they just love small things." "The Japanese" are not some kind of lilliputian race. In fact, these days their phones are BIGGER than most current GSM models. There is indeed space for a PC in most homes, although it's true that the level of PC ownership is not as high as in the US.
   
   
2. "Japanese are all crowded together in the cities, so it's easier to build wireless networks." Urban population percentage: Japan - 65%, USA - 80%, Canada - 80%. In reality, the proportion of people living in the densest cities is more like Canada (the biggest wireless backwater in the world). Moreover, once you start getting REALLY dense, it becomes even harder to build mobile networks because you end up having to put base stations in weird places instead of just erecting a tower.
   
   
3. "Mobile phones are bling in Asia." Commonly uttered by those who don't understand that Japan is not Hong Kong. High-end "fashion phones" do not drive features in Japan. DoCoMo's flagship 900 series phones have all retailed around the $200 mark since forever. The bling that you sometimes see on the street is all aftermarket dress-up and doesn't have much to do with new features. In fact, these days, the hottest market is the creation of high usability, large-type phones for the senior market.
   
   
4. "Using the phone as a modem is expensive in Japan." As of 2007, also not true anymore. I posted a thread before realizing there were more myths to bust. Flat rate data for laptops is also coming from the Big Three carriers within the next month or so.

I could go on, but when it comes to Japan, be careful whose information you trust. Lots of people who claim to know about Japan don't speak even speak the language, which continues to contribute to a lot of misinformation.

Myths aside, I think the real reasons Japan is so far ahead have a little bit to do with culture and language, a little more to do with urban density causing carriers to push low-bandwith services (i.e., text messaging) coupled with public transport and portability factors, and a lot more to do with insanely poor telecom regulation in other areas of the world (here's looking at you, Canada).

There are no really good reasons why we can't have the same quality of mobile services as Japan -- if only we demanded it (in large masses) from our governments, telecom carriers, and handset manufacturers. Thankfully, in the wake of iPhone and the unlocking debate it started, we might see some positive change. When we're on par with Japan, I'm going to laugh at all the pundits who claimed there was something unique about Japanese people, society, or culture that makes them so mobile-centric.

A recent attempt to add subsection "3.i That means you as well, Bush" was vetoed by one of the permanent members of the security council.

(NB: "its", not "it's")
There are 50 listed here. Some are a bit wishy-washy, but a few highlights:

• World Food Programme (WFP): in 2001 distributed 4.2 million tons of food to 77 million people in 82 countries.
• Providing safe drinking water - UN agencies have worked to make safe drinking water available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade.
• Clearing land mines - The United Nations is leading an international effort to clear land mines from former battlefields in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Rwanda and Somalia.
• Improving global communications - The Universal Postal Union (UPU) has maintained and regulated international mail delivery. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has coordinated use of the radio spectrum

My favorites:

• No world wars. That was and is the main reason for the UN. Better for bureaucrats to waste time and money papershuffling than let machismo rule.
• Eradication of smallpox

Here's another, more complete, list of the useful things the UN has achieved

I'll go back to my armchair in my cave now...

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article17: Right of innocent passage

Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.

Article24: Duties of the coastal State

1. The coastal State shall not hamper the innocent passage of foreign ships through the territorial sea except in accordance with this Convention. In particular, in the application of this Convention or of any laws or regulations adopted in conformity with this Convention, the coastal State shall not:

(a) impose requirements on foreign ships which have the practical effect of denying or impairing the right of innocent passage; or

(b) discriminate in form or in fact against the ships of any State or against ships carrying cargoes to, from or on behalf of any State.

2. The coastal State shall give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation, of which it has knowledge, within its territorial sea.

You're both right. However, Information Technology Year was also 1995, 1996, 1999 and 2006.

Well, I just read the specifics. The onus for inspections was on the UN. And according to resolution 687, section C, subsection 8, Iraq need only accept the destruction of said weapons under international supervision. In other words, it wasn't Iraq's responsibility to provide proof, it was the UNs. The question is, whether or not he was cooperating with the inspectors. And until the end he was (as evidenced by the fact that we couldn't find anything and through the inspectors' own words). But that end came well after the timelines established by the resolution for the UN to finish their job and it was quite clear that we were never going to lift the sanctions, so no person in their right mind would continue cooperating forever.

1. Why the MPAA's principles do not seem to agree with what even the UN's Declaration of Human Rights dictates?

It is well worth it to propose a week long series of special classes about the man, the organization, and the controversies. This allows plenty of time for a balanced presentation from all of the viewpoints. And of course, you can encourage students to put on their on presentations and reports, etc. This should be done in advance of the visit, so that when there is a question and answer period with the celebrity, you can rest well assured that students will ask well informed questions.

Remember that Copyright is included (under Article 27) in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (some clever human rights PSAs here)

Article 27.

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

finally, the European view on copyright and an artist's rights are significantly different compared to typical american viewpoints.

All treaties become part of the constitution. The Universal Deceleration of Human Rights is such a treaty. Now read Article 23 and tell me if that doesn't make nonpayment of a living wage illegal.

If I'm an airport screener, can I reasonably be expected to recognize over 100 types of ID (driver's license or alternative ID from 50 states and every US territory/commonwealth) and be able to detect forgeries?

considering there are 192 member states of the United Nations ( http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml ), you'd have to be proficient in recognizing that many passport types...

I almost can't believe I am responding to this, but in the interest of accuracy:

1. No one in the administration ever said or implied that "Saddam" had anything more than passing ties to anything related with 9/11. No one in the administration ever said Iraq (or Saddam) was responsible for 9/11. Yes, they looked for evidence immediately after 9/11. It appeared that Al-Qaeda *could* have had meetings with persons related with Saddam's government. Ultimately, the strategy after 9/11 was to institute political change in the Mideast, and Iraq was a nation-state for which the most expeditious case could be made. Centrally located, relatively secular, recent history with the American populace, and so on.

In short:

"When [Bush talks] about the fact that we can support emerging democracies in the Middle East, and that's the only way we can prevent future 9/11's, you're getting to the heart of why this administration is fighting that war in Iraq."

That's why 9/11 and Iraq were intermingled. Not because Saddam was responsible for 9/11. But because changing the face of the Mideast, starting with places like Iraq, was seen as the way to PREVENT future 9/11's, over a long period of time. The fact that X% of Americans believed Saddam was involved in 9/11 only speaks to their ignorance, because it was blindingly clear and repeated thousands of times in the days, weeks, and months following the attacks that the perpetrator was a Saudi, and 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi.

2. WMDs.

First: UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Read it carefully.

Second: Since quite a large amount (in the hundreds of tons) of the WMD Iraq was known to be in possession of was still not accounted for in any way, shape, or form, in 1998, it was reasonable to believe Iraq to still be in possession of WMD. Saddam himself believed Iraq to have a nascent nuclear weapons program at the time of the invasion.

Third: Iraq was in material breach of several binding Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions. (I note Chapter VII because someone will always say, "What about all the resolutions Israel violated?" Sorry, those are General Assembly resolutions, which do not carry the weight of force, as do Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions.)

Fourth: Just for fun: What did the Democrats say about Iraq's WMD?

Also, all of this is a hell of a lot more complicated than you seem to think it is. There are armies - literally and figuratively - of analysts and experts in all manner of fields responsible for formulating and executing this strategy. The WMD situation was not at all clear cut, and before 2003, the only thing that was clear cut was that Iraq still had hundreds of tons of WMD it couldn't account for. The fact that inspectors (with whom Iraq never fully cooperated at any point in the prior twelve years) couldn't immediately uncover anything didn't mean weapons that were known to exist at some point and which had no final, provable disposition suddenly ceased to exist.

WMD may have only been the putative reason for initiating the Iraq action; the actual strategy was much more broad and far-reaching. But that still didn't change the fact that WMD was a valid emergent reason to use at the time. Indeed, many planners were dumbfounded that we didn't actually find the caches of WMD that were expected.

The UN website is up, but the page with the Secretary-General's speeches is currently down.
The URL for the actual speech site (bypassing the maintenance page) is http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocus ID=130&Body=xxxxxx&Body1=.

Still vulnerable: SQL error

As you can easily verify by opening this URL, the site is vulnerable to an attack called SQL Injection. This is a very well known kind of vulnerability, fairly easy to avoid and very surprising to find in such a high profile web site.

This one is up: www.un.org!

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/sta tments_full.asp?statID=105' -jim

I personally would have sneaked in and invented a new UN agency with its own inscrutable and almost-pronounceable acronym, and then sat back and watched.

Just imagine if, halfway down this page, you get an entry like this:

UNCRP: Works in field missions to improve standards in accordance with self-determined metrics. Composed of members elected to permanent positions based on a variety of factors subservient to aforementioned goals, assuming goals have been determined prior to agency initiation. Primary work areas include inter-agency provision of UNCRP-related efforts, with the ultimate objective of improving standards, mainly in the field.

One quick email to follow up:

To: secgen@un.org
From: Agency Coordination and Initiation Subcommittee to the Secretariat
Subject: Need traction on UNCRP agency kickstart

Dear sir:

With respect to the newly established UNCRP agency, we respectfully request formal approval of resources. We expect to be operational within 5 years and will submit the initial statement of work within 3 years from approval.

Thank you for providing the momentum to this newly founded agency; we have dedicated much effort to the realization of the UNCRP, as it is conducive to the eradication of, several things in the UN charter.


Regards,


Rolf Wittigersen

And that should be it. Make yourself some popcorn, and watch the headless wonder of a new UN agency being created. At least with the UNCRP, it would be purposeless by design rather than through the diligent work of its employees.

you do realise that the UN website is up? The submitter has just used their default "yeah the website is borked" page http://www.un.org/sg/?