Slashdot Mirror

Article 10
1.An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.
2.The territorial sea of an island is measured in accordance with the provisions of these articles.

Article 121
Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

Article 10
1.An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.
2.The territorial sea of an island is measured in accordance with the provisions of these articles.

Article 121
Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

Do you have a cite for that? article 60 deals with artificial platforms within the 12 mile zone, and article 80 extends it to the continental shelf, but I don't see a blanket prohibition on new artificial islands claiming soveriegn status.

Do you have a cite for that? article 60 deals with artificial platforms within the 12 mile zone, and article 80 extends it to the continental shelf, but I don't see a blanket prohibition on new artificial islands claiming soveriegn status.

If you don't like it, don't buy a car with it. That's the beauty of the free market.

In the United States, I would think that making it mandatory for cars to require the use of such a system would infringe upon a right to travel and a right to freedom from illegal searches. We have a presumption of being innocent until proven guilty (Article 11). A law stating that we must consent to a search of our person in order to drive and and restricting our right to travel if we don't would seem to me (an untrained observer) to be unconstitutional. But then again, implied consent laws have been upheld time and again.

Your posts are both misleading and full of inaccuracies.

1. You seem to be implying that the amount people killed as a result of Saddam's policies during the Iraq-Iran war would be related to the amount of people that would be killed between 2003-present in a non-invaded Iraq. I don't see why this would be the case. The circumstances in those time periods would be entirely different. Most importantly Saddam was completely supported and backed by the US during the Iraq-Iran war, which was most likely what allowed him to carry out such atrocities. If you don't believe me, then feel free to read the publicly available declassified records available from the National Security Archives at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index .htm. Among other things, they contain the minutes from Rumsfeld's meetings with Saddam during the early 1980's, when the US-Iraq special relationship developed.

2. Of course Iraq is of "extreme strategic significance". The country has one of the largest energy reserves in the world, and if the US manages to stabilize Iraq enough for US oil companies to invest in it at the expense of the Iraq people, then the US will have increased its superpower status substantially. Read the "Crude Designs" report (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/cru dedesigns.htm) for an analysis of this.

3. As "A beautiful mind" correctly points out, your figure of 57,617 Iraqi deaths in the war is completely false. Look at the Iraq Body Count's webpage that you linked to. They explicitly state that that number refers to the number of iraq deaths REPORTED. That's a big difference between that and the total number of Iraq deaths, which is probably around 600,000. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mor tality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq)

4. The philosophy you propose seems ignorant and racist. I don't see why an American life should be worth more than others, as you suggest when you say "I don't think it's worth a single American life to help people who are not among our own". And why is it so important that the US get "paid back". If the US does save lives as a result of its actions, then shouldn't that in itself be enough compensation. Furthermore, inaction which you propound as a guiding principle of US politics is completely unrealistic. The US's economy is tightly linked to that of many other countries, and US companies have a presence in many other countries. These facts alone necessitate that the US be involved in world politics, and humanitarian reasons should justify this as well.

5. You claim that the US owes nobody anything else and that the US should get paid back for police work that it has done in the past. What "police work" are you refering to? Most of US military intervention has been to protect and secure the interest of US companies, and things are the other way around: The US owes other countries for unjustified intervention in the past. Here are some examples:

* The invasion of Panama in 1989 (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Panama)
* The US-backed coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002 (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_coup_attem pt_of_2002)
* 25 years of US sanctions against Cuba that have been repeatedly denounced by the UN (See http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10529.doc .htm)
* US sanctions against Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of over 500,000 children (See http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/200

The weapons inspectors found nothing which means that there is no proof that weapons existed.

Not true as of Jan 27th, 2003. From the link:

Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.

Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponised.

And later on regarding chemical bombs:

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized.

Since then it [Iraq] has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

This report indicates (by my reading at least) that yes, the inspectors did find weapons of mass destruction and believed there were most likely more in Iraq's possession. I have been unable to find any indication that Blix changed his opinions between that report and the war, in all seriousness please let me know if you can find any. I much prefer being corrected when wrong.

Other than the documented inventories following the first war that were unaccounted for, there was no conclusive evidence of new weapons. Apparently, there was enough evidence to convince a lot of people they (new weapons or at least the programs to develop/build them) existed though, including John Kerry, Bill and Hilary Clinton, Pelosi, Albright, Sandy Berger, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, and Tony Blair.

I am still waiting for someone to show me anyone who said Iraq did not have these weapons before the invasion. I am beginning to believe it will never occur because approximately zero people believed it prior to the invasion.

"Regardless, we (the US) currently has a terrible disaster on our hands."

No the Iraqi people have the disaster on their hands, the US just has an inconvenient and expensive problem by comparison. It will soon be forgotten about.

While I see your point, I don't agree. Personally (that's all I can speak for) I feel we (the US) have a responsibility to help them (the Iraqis) out of the mess. I feel we are responsible for it (with which I am sure you agree) and must not "abandon" them unless they request it.

It was apparently much harder to say "if they tell us they don't want us, we won't go".

Weren't the UN supposed to have a say in whether

"the reason for the reactivation of conflict (failure to comply with the terms of the original cease fire)"

this was the right course of action.

Not sure I agree with that one. My recollection of the first war was that the UN said it was OK, then the US declared war (along with the "coalition"). The cease fire was not signed with the UN, it was signed with the US (and the coalition). I may not have a correct memory there, but because of that, in my mind's eye, it is p

How's your map reading? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4 /Operation_Desert_Storm.jpg

I make US forces about 200 miles into Iraq. You?

Saddam Hussein didn't attend the ceasefire ceremony, but his military commanders did sign the ceasefire. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/ 02/iraq_events/html/ceasefire.stm

Once again, Saddam did not kick the inspectors out. He tried to kick the US inspectors out (and succeeded for about six weeks in 1997). http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronolo gyframe.htm

The inspectors were later withdrawn due to non-cooperation, and also because they were at risk from the Desert Fox bombing campaign, which was designed to force Saddam to allow the inspectors into the buildings they had been barred from.

And Saddam did not violate the ceasefire, the terms of the ceasefire simply read 'get out of Kuwait and don't come back, and give us a list of your minefields while you're at it'. The anti-WMD UN resolutions actually predate Desert Storm (see 612), and it's those Saddam violated by refusing to cooperate with UNSCOM.

People do have such memories don't they? They forget the US invaded Iraq in Desert Storm, they forget the UN inspectors were not kicked out, they forget what it was that Hussein was supposed to have done wrong

And sadly there's no real evidence that the Iraqis were building their military up, just failing to get rid of the old one in sufficiently transparent a manner. Why? Possibly because Saddam was stuck trying to convince his very pissed off neighbours to the east and south that he was still a big bad dog.

I don't know, did they ? : Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns. Note the un.org domain in my link.

...that doesn't have a link to the report it talks about?
UN press release
FAO press release
The report in question

This wouldn't affect existing recordings anyway even if it was enacted into law!

If you introduce a new law, it can't be applied to anything that was done before the law was introduced; and if you introduce a new punishment for an offence, anyone who was sentenced to the old punishment can't be given the new one. That's article 11 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights makes similar provisions and is enshrined in UK law as the Human Rights Act 1998.

A copyright term extension could only be applied to brand-new copyrights. Existing copyrights would not be affected. The holders knew -- and presumably agreed to -- the terms when they created their creative works.

This seems to be the order of the day. No matter how weird a case you have, if it gets turned down in the supreme court, take it to a human rights court instead.

Note sure what human rights has to do with this. Certainly can't see anything related to human language copyright, or IP, in there.

However, bashing it through code-words, questioning the very right of its people to exist, echoing false claims about history? Those are not reasonable.

And those are not things that I have done. I've used no "code words"; Zionism is the proper name for the political movement and ideology in question. I've certainly not questioned any people's right to exist, I've just questioned political actions. And while I'm not a historical expert, it's clear that my understanding of the history involved covers facts that yours does not.

Hatred of Israel is indeed based in antisemitism.

So Orthodox Jews who are opposed to the existance of a Jewish nation (an opinion I do not share) are anti-Semetic?

Lay off the ad hominem fallacies.

You are forgetting (of course) the real history: that the Jews there were indiginous natives or settlers who came there and bought land.

You are (conveniently) starting the story well in the middle. It's as if one were to argue that Native Americans who resisted settlers had no claim, since the settlers had after all bought land - ignoring that the claims of those from whom they bought the land were based on theft.

Any meaningful discussion of the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict must start with the British Mandate and the Balfour Declaration, and the British-backed immigration of Jewish settlers into the area in the 1920s and 1930s.

One has to have a certain degree of antisemitism to be "sad" that Israel even exists.

One has to be lacking a certain degree of common sense to think that the events in that region from 1917 to today have proceeded in the best imaginable fashion, and not to lament the failure of better alternatives, based on cooperation rather than colonialism.

Before the Balfour Declaration, Jews and Arabs lived side by side in a state of general tolerance; imagine if radicals in the Zionist movement and the British government hadn't screwed that up, if a small Jewish homeland had been allowed to peacefully develop.

Imagine if Pinsker had gained more support for founding a Jewish homeland in Argentina or some other Western nation, by peacefully negotiating for land; certainly that would have let to a better situation than today's daily violence.

Imagine if, after WWII, the Jewish people who had contributed so much to European culture and had been so horribly persecuted in the Nazi holocaust, had been given in reparation land in Germany to found a nation.

One can imagine dozens of alternatives to the current situation of a failed state propped up by America, a poisonous political sitation that is corroding the great legacy of Jewish culture.

If one can look at the current situation and not be sad, then one is insane.

You seem to think the whole world is a very reasonable and honest place. I'm sorry to break it to you, but that just isn't so.
Thanks for the newsflash, kid. Your conclusion seems to be that there is no hope for nations to cooperate, ever, because not everyone is 100% honest and reasonable. Bullshit.

India has a shitload of people who would be threatened by sea level rise. China has atrocious air quality, and at some point their citizens are going to be pissed about their kids dying from asthma (increased wealth leads to people caring about these things- see: US, Clean Air Act). Keep in mind China has a wee problem with civil uprisings already.

You are asking me to provide The Solution. I'm not that smart. But if you have a global carbon emissions cap and trade system, for instance, who benefits? Perhaps those countries with, say, low-cost labor that can crank out solar panels at $0.50 per Watt? Whom might that be? And would it be advantageous to have an agreement that stimulates global demand for such products?

The point is, it's conceivable to have a framework that are potentially beneficial for these countries, and not overly injurious to us.

Your powers of recall appear weak. Canada says it remains in Kyoto climate pact, posted 12 hours ago. Australia didn't follow through because the US didn't. Sure, Canada's waffling and having a hard time. But that doesn't exactly excuse the US for failing to offer any constructive alternatives to the (admittedly flawed) Kyoto protocol.

In the CO2 game, compared to our peers in Europe, we are the bad guy, if you think CO2 is a problem. If you don't, we're frickin heroes. I am rightly critical of the US when our leaders do not act in a fashion that is consistent with our country's greatness. I criticize not because I hate my country, but because I love what it stands for.

Do you remember the Non-Proliferation Treaty? It was created at the height of the Cold War. I would submit that the world is collectively much, much better off than if this treaty had never come into place. Sure, you have Iran and North Korea, and we have to deal with that.

And how about the Montreal Protocol on CFCs? Did we have to go to war over that one? Or did countries see a mutual problem and actually agree to do something? Did the switch to CFC alternatives lead to massive economic upheaval?

War (used to) require an immediate threat. No one (myself included) is going to send their kid to die invading another country to reduce their CO2 emissions. The threat is too vague. Like CFCs, it'll have to happen through diplomacy.

Anyway, I'm done here. Good luck.

Not to mention the rather minor point that the US broke international law by invading Iraq in the first place.

I'm sorry, what law was that???? ... Come on, spit it out! What is this law that we broke????

What acts are war crimes?
War crimes are defined by the Geneva Conventions, the precedents of the Nuremberg Tribunals, an older area of law referred to as the Laws and Customs of War, and, in the case of the former Yugoslavia, the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague (ICTY).

War crimes fall into three groups - or four if you include genocide.

Crimes against peace
  * planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances
  * participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the above

War crimes
Violations of the laws or customs of war, including:
  * Atrocities or offences against persons or property, constituting violations of the laws or customs of war
  * murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of the civilian population in occupied territory
  * murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas ...

(follow link for more)

No arab country has millions of Jews planning on burning it from existance.

Well, that's because millions of Jews (backed by the British) already succeeded in wresting land away from Arabs.

Iran has not addressed the long outstanding verification issues or provided the necessary transparency to remove uncertainties associated with some of its activities. Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities; nor has Iran acted in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol... The Agency remains unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify the correctness and completeness of Iran's declarations with a view to confirming the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme.

If they ever actually "take it all" and displace the native Palestinians, you'll know if by the refuge camps in Jordan, Syria, and Egypt.

2) Remove a dictator who was ignoring UN sanctions
3) Help stop genocide

I'm more interested in when they will be sued for blocking accounts based on "terrorist" last names.

Human rights, anyone?

Here is a treaty for you. 'Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction' The first line of the preamble 'Determined to act with a view to achieving effective progress towards general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, including the prohibition and elimination of all types of weapons of mass destruction,'.

NBC weapons are three classes of weapons. WMDs are weapons with certain effects. Almost all WMDs are in the nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon classes, but they don't have to be. Almost all nuclear and biological weapons would be WMDs, and most chemical weapons are WMDs. That does not make WMD and NBC synonyms, and it doesn't mean that 'WMDs' started getting used because it was 'more scary'.

That is, the term didn't get selected. It has been used to a rather absurd amount, considing that WMD have not, in fact, been used in recent history.

3 billion people (half the world's population) live on less than 2 dollars a day. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/poverty/images/IDEP_f lyer_A4.pdf There's going to be some well educated people in there.

the authorities can always arrest you for SOMETHING, and hence they have immense power over the *cough* voters *cough*.

If you are a felon you cannot vote. More and more crimes are being made felonies, including the crime of having too many misdemeanors. Misdemeanors can often be prosecuted without trial or at least without legal representation being made available. And of course in some states it is reported that even having unpaid speeding tickets can prevent you from voting because the police are waiting at the voting booth to take people to jail. If you want power in a Democracy you can either convince the majority of your view or prevent the majority of your opposition from voting. Guess which one our rulers have decided is easier to do.

Man, I know that felons cannot vote, but I am very curious how can you actually do that? I mean, WTF? What democracy is thif you can be robbed of your right to vote?

Let me quote this from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN) http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html:
Article 21.

            (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
            (2) ...
            (3) ...

You should note that there is no disticntion regarding whether you're a criminal or not.

In my country every election in every prison there are voting booths and usually the national TV shows a report on them. The reality is NOT whay you see in the Holywood movies, these people are serving their terms, they look crushed most of the time, they're guilty BUT they are still people! Why would you expell them from voting is beyond me.

[SARCASM]It is not like they are a significant portion of the population... [/SARCASM]

I just can't understand what is the US of A trying to do? What's all the fuss with those criminals? So far they are neglecting at least three parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - torture in Gitmo, disregarging the presumption of innocence and banning convicted felons from voting. May I remind you that is the same declaration they try to impose on the rest of the world.

I'm not saying that we glorified you, but the USA's image was nowhere near where it's today. Anti-Americanism boiling under the surface is something different from wide-spread open distrust towards the USA.

Okay- fair enough. I still believe that there are bigger issues at play here than trying to make sure that Europe likes us.

As for Iraq: Nobody believed you when you said that Saddam paid Osama (which he didn't),

I'm not sure what you mean by "paid Osama" (Osama was already rich- why would Iraq need to pay him?), but even assuming Iraq had no relationship with al Qaeda, they had still been supporting dozens of other terrorist organizations (like Abu Nidal, the PKK, Carlos the Jackal, etc) for decades. Or do you think that Russia didn't believe us?

nobody believed you when you said he didn't comply with the weapon restrictions

That's strange. In January, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, Hans Blix himself testified that Iraq "appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it" (Source). So I guess he believed it. In fact, several other governments have also publically stated that they believed this as well. And guess what? They were exactly right. The Iraqi Survey Group found dozens of illegal and hidden weapons programs in Iraq that the UN didn't know about. True, we didn't find the old decaying stockpiles of weapons we thought we would find, but instead what we found was much worse.

almost nobody wanted to help you when you attacked a country that was well under control (partially due to you already keeping them in check).

If Iraq had been well under control, they would not have been supporting international terrorist groups to commit murder, they wouldn't have been gaming the UN Oil-For-Food program to allow them to smuggle any proscribed item that they wanted in the country, and they wouldn't have been developing dozens of illegal and hidden weapons that UNMOVIC didn't know about.

In the process you destabilized the country and possibly the region.

Are you somehow under the impression that the middle east was "stable" prior to 2003?

Also, you're making yourself unpopular with the very people you claimed to have freed, as you a) are an invader, b) have plunged their entire country into conditions even worse then before and c) are effectively taking away their oil resources.

We may be unpopular, and we certainly are invaders, but how can you claim that conditions in Iraq are worse than under Saddam? And how can you claim that we are taking away their oil- "effectively" or not?

Iraq is not a fun place to be right now, and like I said, we all wish it was going better there now than it is. But at least now the Iraqis have a chance to determine their own future, rather than suffer under a brutal and tyrannical dictator. Not only did Saddam directly murder hundreds of thousands of his own innocent civilians (some estimates are as high as 2 million), but he started two bloody wars that cost millions more to die, and countless others suffered and died under his direction because of his refusal to cooperate with the UN to lift sanctions in the 1990s.

So would you rather live like that, or live in an Iraq today that is violent, dangerous, and scary, b

Yes, the Hatian Aeronautics and Space Administration has really dropped the ball.

Heavens forbid that a corporation might put ethics ahead of profit. If I offered Cisco a hundred bucks to kill my neighbor, would the defense argument be that if they didn't do it, someone else would've?

Its even more hypocritical than that, if these companies are anything like the other big corporations I've worked at, they mandate a certain ethical standard for all their employees. So you have the company on one hand touting the ethics and moral guidelines that all their employees have to abide by, while at the same time using the other hand to do very un-ethical things such as censorship and restriction of free speech (things that decidedly not in agreement with universal human rights).

Its completely absurd, and all done in the name of profit - which in China is absurd in itself since its only short-term profit. The Chinese government strictly controls the amount of foreign investment allowed in companies, guaranteeing in time that home-grown Chinese corporations will eventually move into dominant positions. So all these companies are sacrificing ethics, making excuses, all for a little bit of profit, following this stupid pipe dream that they will become -the- dominant player in China, when its already been decided at the beginning that Chinese corps will ultimately win out. And the irony is that by being so complicit in it all these corps are guaranteeing that outcome...

Israel has been making sacrifices. They gave up territories, they prepared peace offerings.

Sure, Israel is giving up territory. Are you really that blind? Israel IS on foreign terriory and has been for a number of years. Them giving up 1% of the invaded territory is supposed to be a nice thing?

In 1967 the UN passed a resolution that Isreal is in foreign territory and asked for their withdrawel which has still not happened after soon to be 30 years. UN Resolution 242 is the one

I don't have a position supporting either side, but I feel I should correct a point of yours...

Hezbollah had been making rocket attacks on Israeli cities before the Israelis began their bombing campaign (and later invasion) of south Lebanaon. I refer you to a timeline of the current crisis. They did escalate their attacks after the Israeli response.

Beyond the scope of the current conflict, Hezbollah has been firing rockets at Israeli on and off for some time now; for example, see this story from Dec. 2005 regarding a rocket strike from Lebanon on the town of Kiryat Shmona.

But really, if you want to try to say "who started it", you'll be going back decades and centuries. You can't view this incident in isolation, it's all part of the long history of conflict between many parties in the Middle East.

my ass. the UN is responsible for their own actions and where they put their people. Lebanon and Israel *approved* their presence? So what. That doesn't mean they should be there. Senior military officers, staff officers and military observers serving on United Nations missions are directly employed by the UN--usually on secondment from their national armed forces. Peacekeeping troops, popularly known as Blue Helmets, participate in UN peacekeeping under terms that are carefully negotiated by their Governments and remain under the overall authority of those Governments while serving under UN operational command. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q8.htm Peacekeeping is a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace. UN peacekeepers--soldiers and military officers, police and civilian personnel from many countries--monitor and observe peace processes that emerge in post-conflict situations and assist conflicting parties to implement the peace agreement they have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including promoting human security, confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q1.htm Yeah that makes sense when the two sides are actively blowing each other away. Get a clue. The Lebanon peacekeeping mission was launch in 1978. 30 years ago. The Peace was not kept, they should have gotten the fuck out. They are responsible for putting their troops in harms way.

my ass. the UN is responsible for their own actions and where they put their people. Lebanon and Israel *approved* their presence? So what. That doesn't mean they should be there. Senior military officers, staff officers and military observers serving on United Nations missions are directly employed by the UN--usually on secondment from their national armed forces. Peacekeeping troops, popularly known as Blue Helmets, participate in UN peacekeeping under terms that are carefully negotiated by their Governments and remain under the overall authority of those Governments while serving under UN operational command. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q8.htm Peacekeeping is a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace. UN peacekeepers--soldiers and military officers, police and civilian personnel from many countries--monitor and observe peace processes that emerge in post-conflict situations and assist conflicting parties to implement the peace agreement they have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including promoting human security, confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q1.htm Yeah that makes sense when the two sides are actively blowing each other away. Get a clue. The Lebanon peacekeeping mission was launch in 1978. 30 years ago. The Peace was not kept, they should have gotten the fuck out. They are responsible for putting their troops in harms way.

Why do you post anonymously I wonder?

This is an antisemitic smear campaign if I've ever seen one.

The cowardly terrorists of Hezbolla (the "party of God", no less!) hide behind civilians and UN posts to work bigots like Jani Taskinen and ignoramuses like the parent poster into a frenzy. And what a fine job they've done.

No mention of Hezbolla targeting UN installations even though they do. No mention of Hezbolla taking cover behind UN installations. No mention of Hebzolla deliberately targeting and murdering civillians for no military gain whatsoever.

Here it is from the horses mouth -- from the UN. No friend of Israel if you know anything at all about modern history:

"The number of troops in some Ghanaian battalion positions is somewhat reduced
because of the increased safety risk for the troops due to frequent incidents
of Hezbollah firing from the vicinity of the positions, and shelling and
bombardment close to the positions from the Israeli side."
source: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr012 .pdf

"One unarmed UN military observer, a member of the Observer Group Lebanon (OGL),
was seriously wounded by small arms fire in the patrol base in the Marun Al Ras
area yesterday afternoon. According to preliminary reports, the fire originated
from the Hezbollah side during an exchange with the IDF. He was evacuated by
the UN to the Israeli side, from where he was taken by an IDF ambulance
helicopter to a hospital in Haifa. He was operated on, and his condition is now
reported as stable."
source: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr08. pdf

"There were three incidents of firing close to UN positions in the last 24
hours from the Israeli side. It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the
vicinity of four UN positions at Marwahin, Alma Ash Shab, Brashit, and At Tiri."
source: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr011 .pdf

Additionally:

Retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie regarding the UN observer post
hit by Israeli shells. The Canadian peacekeeper killed there had previously
emailed Mackenzie telling him that Hizballah was using their post as cover.

"We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact
that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for
tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that's veiled speech in the
military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his
position and the IDF were targeting them. And that's a favorite trick by people
who don't have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing
that they can't be punished for it."

Why do you post anonymously I wonder?

This is an antisemitic smear campaign if I've ever seen one.

The cowardly terrorists of Hezbolla (the "party of God", no less!) hide behind civilians and UN posts to work bigots like Jani Taskinen and ignoramuses like the parent poster into a frenzy. And what a fine job they've done.

No mention of Hezbolla targeting UN installations even though they do. No mention of Hezbolla taking cover behind UN installations. No mention of Hebzolla deliberately targeting and murdering civillians for no military gain whatsoever.

Here it is from the horses mouth -- from the UN. No friend of Israel if you know anything at all about modern history:

"The number of troops in some Ghanaian battalion positions is somewhat reduced
because of the increased safety risk for the troops due to frequent incidents
of Hezbollah firing from the vicinity of the positions, and shelling and
bombardment close to the positions from the Israeli side."
source: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr012 .pdf

"One unarmed UN military observer, a member of the Observer Group Lebanon (OGL),
was seriously wounded by small arms fire in the patrol base in the Marun Al Ras
area yesterday afternoon. According to preliminary reports, the fire originated
from the Hezbollah side during an exchange with the IDF. He was evacuated by
the UN to the Israeli side, from where he was taken by an IDF ambulance
helicopter to a hospital in Haifa. He was operated on, and his condition is now
reported as stable."
source: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr08. pdf

"There were three incidents of firing close to UN positions in the last 24
hours from the Israeli side. It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the
vicinity of four UN positions at Marwahin, Alma Ash Shab, Brashit, and At Tiri."
source: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr011 .pdf

Additionally:

Retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie regarding the UN observer post
hit by Israeli shells. The Canadian peacekeeper killed there had previously
emailed Mackenzie telling him that Hizballah was using their post as cover.

"We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact
that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for
tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that's veiled speech in the
military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his
position and the IDF were targeting them. And that's a favorite trick by people
who don't have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing
that they can't be punished for it."

Why do you post anonymously I wonder?

This is an antisemitic smear campaign if I've ever seen one.

The cowardly terrorists of Hezbolla (the "party of God", no less!) hide behind civilians and UN posts to work bigots like Jani Taskinen and ignoramuses like the parent poster into a frenzy. And what a fine job they've done.

No mention of Hezbolla targeting UN installations even though they do. No mention of Hezbolla taking cover behind UN installations. No mention of Hebzolla deliberately targeting and murdering civillians for no military gain whatsoever.

Here it is from the horses mouth -- from the UN. No friend of Israel if you know anything at all about modern history:

"The number of troops in some Ghanaian battalion positions is somewhat reduced
because of the increased safety risk for the troops due to frequent incidents
of Hezbollah firing from the vicinity of the positions, and shelling and
bombardment close to the positions from the Israeli side."
source: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr012 .pdf

"One unarmed UN military observer, a member of the Observer Group Lebanon (OGL),
was seriously wounded by small arms fire in the patrol base in the Marun Al Ras
area yesterday afternoon. According to preliminary reports, the fire originated
from the Hezbollah side during an exchange with the IDF. He was evacuated by
the UN to the Israeli side, from where he was taken by an IDF ambulance
helicopter to a hospital in Haifa. He was operated on, and his condition is now
reported as stable."
source: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr08. pdf

"There were three incidents of firing close to UN positions in the last 24
hours from the Israeli side. It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the
vicinity of four UN positions at Marwahin, Alma Ash Shab, Brashit, and At Tiri."
source: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr011 .pdf

Additionally:

Retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie regarding the UN observer post
hit by Israeli shells. The Canadian peacekeeper killed there had previously
emailed Mackenzie telling him that Hizballah was using their post as cover.

"We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact
that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for
tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that's veiled speech in the
military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his
position and the IDF were targeting them. And that's a favorite trick by people
who don't have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing
that they can't be punished for it."

"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

However, there exists no law on record that grants you any right to security. Granting such a right would require that protection be given, and the protecting party be held responsible should you still be blown up.

its easy

1. Get a pres who aint a war-criminal

2. go here www.mineaction.org/

3. sign the "Otawa Treaty: Landmine Ban Convention"

4. feel as good as the other ONE-HUNDRED AND FIFTY-FOUR countries who did this before you

The irony is that these days also the US government is having problems because of its Human Rights abuses, and like facist governments before, the current US government have tried to change or got rid of the principles of international justice the UN is build upon. It is quite remarkable how the UN has survived so much hostility from dictatorships and political extreem organisations. It shows that building on a strong fundament makes for a strong organisation, and the Human Rights is definitely shown itself to be a strong governing principle.

You are an idiot. The invasion is illegal because it violates international law, not because the invasion violates a UN resolution. Actually, the invasion not only violates international law, but the UN charter as well link: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ I recommend reading article 2.

I meant the partition of Palestine

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38 525617b006d88d7/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253!O penDocument

what is the proper relationship between the chinese people and their culture and their history? how does it explain why they just love living under an elite that assumes to know better than they do about how they should live their lives?

see, silly me, i'm someone who believes that cultural differences DO matter ...but that some questions go above and beyond cultural differences!

in other words, some issues are simply true for all human beings, regardless

for example: wearing the hijab. as a westerner i find the idea repugnant. but i respect that in the islamic world, it is accepted and embraced. so i respect that cultural difference, because in a different cultural context, it has a different meaning, and i realize that. to me, as a westerner, it seems to be a way to demean women as anonymous property. but in the islamic world, it is meant to convey the idea of that a woman is not just a sex object, to allow her to live outside of the contraints as defined by prurient male interest. so i respect that interpretation, because i don't live in the islamic world, so i have no right or ability to comment on the hijab as it is used in the context of another culture

another example: cannibalism. some tribes in highland papua new guinea still practice it. this is a cultural difference, with a cultural and historical context. however, i do not respect it. i don't respect it, not as a westerner, i don't respect it, as a human being. the right to life and limb is a right that exists ABOVE and BEYOND the question of cultural and historical context

see how that works? cultural differences matter. but some questions exist ABOVE and BEYOND cultural concerns, that no flimsy excuse should excuse. "it's ok to murder someone, because it's acceptable in this culture." bullshit. no human being wants to be murdered. that right exists as something more important than any respect for any culture, end of story

but, silly me, to say that makes me a western cultural imperialist right?

to get back to the original point: no one on the planet should live under an aristocracy or technocracy that assumes it knows better than the people themselves about how to live their lives. to believe that is just a limited western viewpoint of mine, right?

or maybe not, asshole, as agreed by all peoples of all cultures a long time ago, having nothing to do with western interests whatsoever

It's what he did with them that remains hard to hammer out, and that's what he was spending so much time and energy trying to hide from everyone, despite signing an agreement allowing full inspection.

Just a wild suggestion... Maybe he actually destroyed them?

He didn't want a war because he knew he'd end up dead.. as will hopefully soon happen. Actually destroying these weapons, which he had no realistic prospect of using without instant obliteration now he was no longer a US ally against Iran, would certainly have been in his best interests.

But I do not dispute his desire and willingness to make and use them.. nor his future intention to do so either! Just his practical ability.

PS: The '500' mustard and sarin shells (disclosed in 1999, only wight ring prats call it recent, although the real figure is more like 650+) should be set against 50,000+ which the UN accepts were destroyed..

Art19 of Human rights: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


Now who is the pirate again? As I see it, people that call us pirates because we gladly spread information through informatic media are really violating one of the most forgoten articles in the bill of human rights, which in fact was signed by almost all the countries in the world.

Please spread your ideas throught europe and the rest of the world, because we need paladins for a cause that most people wont even see it until we reach a police or fascist state.

Cheers: Z

"Deception and Agendas are aplenty, and we will not know whether or not you are right
for some time, but...consider Iran's step to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty."

There certainly are and the U.S. and Israel engage in more deception and agendas than anyone.

As an interesting intellectual exercise people should actually read theNuclear Non Proliferation Treaty

One agenda is that Israel, Pakistan and India never signed the NPT in the first place so why are you not up in arms about THEIR complete absence of ANY oversight. Israel is believed to have developed hundreds of nuclear weapons, and they have credible delivery mechanisms so could probably easily incinerate Iran TODAY. Where is your outrage about Israel's actual nuclear weapons development versus the maybe someday that is Iran's nuclear program.

Pakistan is thought to have been the world's largest proliferater of nuclear technology especially through the A.Q. Khan ring and when this fact was discovered the U.S. took no action against them other than MAYBE shutting down the proliferation ring. Khan was basically pardoned and as a national hero of Pakistan is still free today.

Then of course there is the U.S. which has some real deception and agendas of its own. The nuclear weapons haves in the NPT didn't submit themselves to ANY international oversight of their nuclear programs. In the treaty the nuclear powers DID commit to nuclear disarmament, an end to the arms race and end to the development of new nuclear weapons. The U.S., especially the Bush administration, largely defiant of all those sections in the preamble. The U.S. is in fact developing new nuclear weapons under the Bush administration and may well unilaterally withdraw from the test ban treaty someday in order to test them unless someone comes to their senses or more moderate people get elected. The Bush administration is doing its best to provoke a new arms race not end them, unless maybe the end comes because the U.S. acquires such an enormous lead Russia and China give up. And probably the most disturbing "agenda" which leaves the NPT in tatters, the Bush administration is seriously talking about and is developing tactical nuclear weapons that it fully intends to actually use in conventional wars, unless someone stops them. In particular they want to use small nuclear devices to incinerate cave complexes and bunkers that are difficult to destroy with conventional explosives.

Where does it leave the NPT if the U.S. actually starts using nuclear weapons as a matter of routine in future wars.

Below are some of the interesting sections of the NPT, which aren't exactly in the articles of the treaty but are more preamble referring to things like the U.N. Charter.

Especially note this section referencing and affirming the U.N. Charter which the U.S. pretty much violates everytime it invades a sovereign country, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, or acts to overthrow sovereign governments. The U.S. also diverts more to armaments than the rest of the world combined:

"States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, and that the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security are to be promoted with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources"

"Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament, Urging the co-operation of all States in the attainment of this objective".

"Recalling the determination expressed by the Parties to the 1963 Treaty banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water in its Preamble to seek to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of n

Offshore affairs certainly put a different spin on the problem, and moves to internationalise control of the Internet through the UN may present an opportunity to control wayward countries and ensure that they enforce internationally binding internet laws* in accordance with the declaration of human rights.

* laws that don't exist yet, hence the unsolicited commercial email problem.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948

Article 12.

            No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 30.

            Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Member -- (Date of Admission)

United States of America -- (24 Oct. 1945)

http://www.enterprisemission.com/
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
http://www.divinecosmos.com/
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://www.biocybernaut.com/
http://www.lod.org/
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
http://www.sitchin.com/
http://www.lenr-canr.org/
http://www.zptech.net/
http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/dag/meditationroom.htm
http://www.starchildproject.com/

That should keep everybody busy ..

There is certainly an arguement against it on civil liberties. Could you miss that forcing people to give their DNA is perhaps a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights articles 12 and 17. Blood is personal property, and you are talking about taking it without consent.

Form a national database if you will, but rely on voluntary provision of DNA samples. Any other method is obviously a violation of human rights.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I don't have a right to a job.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.