Slashdot Mirror

huh? Last I checked, education is a basic human right...

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

Lets do a little comparison between the U.S. government, and the UN, which I assume would be given control of the Internet if it is taken from ICANN

From the U.S. Bill of Rights:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No matter what you say about Bush's DoJ coming down on porn offices, how many actually think it would hold up in court? I submit that no Judge in this nation would restrict speech in such a way, with the exception of kiddie porn and snuff films.

From the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
After affirming all of the rights laid out in the U.S. Bill of Rights, there is Article 29, Section 3:

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

So basically, according to what Bill Clinton called "the greatest document in the history of mankind", your rights stop when they run contrary to whatever the UN is trying to accomplish. From an organisation where North Korea and Iran are on the same playing field as Great Britain, Germany, France, and yes, the U.S.

Just something to think about.

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. [...]

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

Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

UN is not far from Al Quaeda and RIAA

Wow.... its amazing isn't it how the organisation that is responsible for some of the most effective global treaties, charities and welfare organisations. The UN has certainly done more than any single country to promote peace and equality and you are comparing it to a terrorist organisation and the enforcement arm of the media industry....

This is the organisation that is ABLE to do peace keeping in lots of countries around the world where ONE COUNTRY is unable to act as an independent between warring factions. (UN Peace keeping) This is the organisation that the US Goverment is DESPERATE to get more involved in Iraq for instance.

This is the organisation that can get countries together to discuss elements that matter to the whole planet (Desertification) and specific elements like helping out certain groups in countries ( helping out in Laos)

This is the organisation tasked with sorting out the trials of Rwanda and Yugoslavia as well of some of the most important international treaties.

And then of course there is the REALLY bad stuff they do like UNHCR on landmines and of course the scum at UNICEF

This is just part of what the UN has done since the second world war, the vast vast majority of it very good and very effective.

And as for your corruption, "Aid for Food" was indeed bad corruption, how different this is of course from Halliburton and the open White House chequebook is a mute point.

UN is not far from Al Quaeda and RIAA

Wow.... its amazing isn't it how the organisation that is responsible for some of the most effective global treaties, charities and welfare organisations. The UN has certainly done more than any single country to promote peace and equality and you are comparing it to a terrorist organisation and the enforcement arm of the media industry....

This is the organisation that is ABLE to do peace keeping in lots of countries around the world where ONE COUNTRY is unable to act as an independent between warring factions. (UN Peace keeping) This is the organisation that the US Goverment is DESPERATE to get more involved in Iraq for instance.

This is the organisation that can get countries together to discuss elements that matter to the whole planet (Desertification) and specific elements like helping out certain groups in countries ( helping out in Laos)

This is the organisation tasked with sorting out the trials of Rwanda and Yugoslavia as well of some of the most important international treaties.

And then of course there is the REALLY bad stuff they do like UNHCR on landmines and of course the scum at UNICEF

This is just part of what the UN has done since the second world war, the vast vast majority of it very good and very effective.

And as for your corruption, "Aid for Food" was indeed bad corruption, how different this is of course from Halliburton and the open White House chequebook is a mute point.

UN is not far from Al Quaeda and RIAA

Wow.... its amazing isn't it how the organisation that is responsible for some of the most effective global treaties, charities and welfare organisations. The UN has certainly done more than any single country to promote peace and equality and you are comparing it to a terrorist organisation and the enforcement arm of the media industry....

This is the organisation that is ABLE to do peace keeping in lots of countries around the world where ONE COUNTRY is unable to act as an independent between warring factions. (UN Peace keeping) This is the organisation that the US Goverment is DESPERATE to get more involved in Iraq for instance.

This is the organisation that can get countries together to discuss elements that matter to the whole planet (Desertification) and specific elements like helping out certain groups in countries ( helping out in Laos)

This is the organisation tasked with sorting out the trials of Rwanda and Yugoslavia as well of some of the most important international treaties.

And then of course there is the REALLY bad stuff they do like UNHCR on landmines and of course the scum at UNICEF

This is just part of what the UN has done since the second world war, the vast vast majority of it very good and very effective.

And as for your corruption, "Aid for Food" was indeed bad corruption, how different this is of course from Halliburton and the open White House chequebook is a mute point.

UN is not far from Al Quaeda and RIAA

Wow.... its amazing isn't it how the organisation that is responsible for some of the most effective global treaties, charities and welfare organisations. The UN has certainly done more than any single country to promote peace and equality and you are comparing it to a terrorist organisation and the enforcement arm of the media industry....

This is the organisation that is ABLE to do peace keeping in lots of countries around the world where ONE COUNTRY is unable to act as an independent between warring factions. (UN Peace keeping) This is the organisation that the US Goverment is DESPERATE to get more involved in Iraq for instance.

This is the organisation that can get countries together to discuss elements that matter to the whole planet (Desertification) and specific elements like helping out certain groups in countries ( helping out in Laos)

This is the organisation tasked with sorting out the trials of Rwanda and Yugoslavia as well of some of the most important international treaties.

And then of course there is the REALLY bad stuff they do like UNHCR on landmines and of course the scum at UNICEF

This is just part of what the UN has done since the second world war, the vast vast majority of it very good and very effective.

And as for your corruption, "Aid for Food" was indeed bad corruption, how different this is of course from Halliburton and the open White House chequebook is a mute point.

UN is not far from Al Quaeda and RIAA

Wow.... its amazing isn't it how the organisation that is responsible for some of the most effective global treaties, charities and welfare organisations. The UN has certainly done more than any single country to promote peace and equality and you are comparing it to a terrorist organisation and the enforcement arm of the media industry....

This is the organisation that is ABLE to do peace keeping in lots of countries around the world where ONE COUNTRY is unable to act as an independent between warring factions. (UN Peace keeping) This is the organisation that the US Goverment is DESPERATE to get more involved in Iraq for instance.

This is the organisation that can get countries together to discuss elements that matter to the whole planet (Desertification) and specific elements like helping out certain groups in countries ( helping out in Laos)

This is the organisation tasked with sorting out the trials of Rwanda and Yugoslavia as well of some of the most important international treaties.

And then of course there is the REALLY bad stuff they do like UNHCR on landmines and of course the scum at UNICEF

This is just part of what the UN has done since the second world war, the vast vast majority of it very good and very effective.

And as for your corruption, "Aid for Food" was indeed bad corruption, how different this is of course from Halliburton and the open White House chequebook is a mute point.

It's a club with no entry requirements: any country can join.

Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations states that it "is open to all other peace-loving States which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations." The procedure is as follows:
- The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a formal declaration stating that it accepts the obligations under the UN Charter.
- The application is considered first by the Security Council. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of nine of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members - China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America - has voted against the application.
- If the Council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General Assembly for consideration. A two-thirds majority vote is necessary for admission of a new State, and membership becomes effective on the date the resolution for admission is adopted.

http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/membersta te.pdf

My gosh...
if we only knew the origins of the Solar System...
if we could walk on the surface of Mars...
if we had the answers to "many of the questions we want to ask about the origin of the Solar System and the evolution of life within it" (from the article)...

THEN maybe we would be able to eradicate poverty, achieve universal primary education, promote human equality, improve maternal health and child mortality rates, eradicate malaria and much much more!!! Yeah! Someone said $100 billion? Sounds good to me!

Hang your head some more. Your post is as far as I'm reading in this thread. Up to this point, I've seen nothing but explanations of the situation and bitching about it. Sure, the explanations are good and necessary and the bitching expected, but for fuck sakes, when someone opens the door to the "well, let's solve it then" conversation the only thing an american (de-capitalized with intent) can think to do is nit-pick spelling. Moreover, if you had spell checked your comment I'm sure it would've veered off into the bush/clinton (see previous capitalization rules) bullshit rhetoric.

The same thing is expected for any other topic of reasonable concern.

Just to stay on topic here's .001% of my solution: Disassociate from your generation's counterpart. Sever ties. Although it may be passé to beat your child as an individual it's in vogue to beat the younger generation as a society. Notice how age discrimination laws are a one-way street that favor older people (e.g. try to become president before age thirty-five). The older generations, generally being frail, reluctant to change and timid of youth has one goliath on their side... networking skills or at least establishment of a grand social network. This manifests itself as government and corporation. This goliath, conscious or not, exists to protect the aged from the strength of youth and the uncertainty of change. While this protection is a desirable trait in nature, considering the benefits of aged wisdom, the pendulum has swung too far in favor of agedness. You might think competition exists between businesses or governments since that is how it's been described, but the truth is that the competition is between generations. Governments govern too much and corporations cooperate too little in order to keep youthful strength in disarray. The result is lack of opportunity and growth for all generations involved. In actuality, all generations rely on each other: the old for their wisdom, the young for their pliability and the middle aged to bridge the two with many layers between. What the country and world need now is fasts against their anti-generation in order to realize the bounty reaped from their cooperation... you have to be pricked in order to smell the rose.

For your consumption, have a look at the population age distribution. Those numbers are for the world - the US in 2000 resembles that of the "developed nation" but with a flatter area and lower count from age 0 to 35 with a massive bulge around 45 to 65. The bulge was a major force in bringing us the ability to write and read this as we are now. Unfortunately, that bulge has the characteristics of the goliath protecting the aged. Realizing the strength in numbers, power in wisdom and age of society you may reach my conclusion: the aged have become too powerful.

You've probably heard the insinuation that the youth are getting worse with every generation, hips gyrated by the rock and roll, drug induced stupors, violent video games and school shootings. They're pushing back. With every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. They are getting worse. Can you imagine a time when the general trend and perception is that the youth are getting better with each generation?

There will be a day when government of growth by human limits is replaced by the Encouragement of growth right up against natures limits. The corporations will be replaced by Cooperations. In addition, yes you myopic cretins, we or those after us will live in utopia whether you want to or not.

Seems a bit radical of a solution to fix a broadband problem, doesn't it? The alternative is to slap a band-aid on the problem at hand while the ailing foundation continues to crumble; threatening to swallow the band-aid and everything it holds together.

By the way, the disassociation I write about doesn't necessarily have to be bloody or violent but, just so you know, it's usually known by its native term: revolution.

You do realize that was, like, eight years ago, right? And then they fixed it ("months"? Good lord!). Are there hiccups? I'm sure there are. But in practice, very few people moan about incompatibility issues.

It was November/December of 1997, so yes about 8 years ago. And I was working at a Fortune 500 company who's Executive VP (pre-CIO days) insisted on immediately upgrading half the company to Office 97 to "standardize". That was 3,000+ desktops on one version and 3,000+ on the older version. It was a damn nightmare for almost a year and that experience stuck with me. :-)

It also stuck with Microsoft, because the Office 97, 2000, XP and 2003 formats are the same and didn't change. Yes, they introduced XML capabilities in 2003 but the default format was the 97/2000/XP one.

Now they're going to change again, this time to XML, and are making the same promises they did in 1997.

Since they are changing, now is the perfect time to try and force an open document solution. Better now than before getting locked into the next cycle.

But in practice, very few people moan about incompatibility issues.

Look harder. Google is your friend.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1631430,00.as p
http://office-watch.com/office/archtemplate.asp?v9 -n05 (Scroll down to #4, about half-way.)

"...neurobiologist seeking data from the Viking probes sent by the United States to Mars in the mid-1970s was told by the US space agency that software to read the 25-year-old computer tapes no longer existed, and "the programmers who knew it had died," according to the scientist."
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=3902& Cr=unesco&Cr1=

And to top it off, Office 2003 has no less that six(!) different versions, of which only the top-end 2 can create XML formats. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/04/23/deviant.html

People don't care about philosophy until it happens to them. Most are apathetic with the attitude "yeah, but what are the odds of that happening to me?" That attitude can NOT be let to rule the day.

Hell, my dad still has the disks he wrote his first book on. TRS-80 Model III, 5 1/4" floppies. And no earthly idea how to get the data off them, much less what format it is in.

Some manufacturing equipment is still controlled by software on OS/9000-based machines. Yes, they can read and write DOS-format floppies now. Of course, the driver for that is $2,500 per node-locked machine...

Sorry for the rant, but this is an important subject I've been burned by before.

  -Charles

Well, I'd call the dues paid by member nations a tax.

But that arguable issue aside, here's (waning: pdf link) a recent proposal to create an International Tax Organization (run by the UN, of course) that will impose global taxes, or levies that would be imposed on the entire world. The revenues generated by these taxes would be made available for income redistribution and other purposes. Tax targets of the UN include fossil fuel use and even emigrants (it hurts poor countries when smart people leave, so they should be taxed to discourage it!)

Google "UN tax" for lots more info!

The response he got was: "I would hope that you can see a vast moral difference between the Presidents decision to defend the American people from further attacks and the actions of Islamic radicals who intentionally murder innocent civilians, to advance their evil ideology and agenda."

For those of us who aren't American, that is exactly what the zealots on the other side say. "I would hope that you can see a vast moral difference between the holy warriors' decision to defend the Muslim people from further attacks and the actions of American radicals who intentionally murder innocent civilians, to advance their evil ideology and agenda."

For those who claim the "evil" states can buy off smaller countries to get votes for censorship, check the countries that can be bought listed under "Against" on all the votes (scroll down to end). There aren't that many.

It seems to me that a multilateral (global) control of the dns servers could only be a good thing for global companies.

I would encourage you to check out Article 29, paragraph 3 of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights." It's an interesting clause basically stating that all the preceeding rights are null if they are contrary to the UN's mission.

Here is the exact quote and the link to the page: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

I can't see how turning over control of any part of the Internet, or anything else, to an organization that does not have representation of the people themselves, only the member states, and has a clause that nullifies its principles if they interfere with the UN.

Lets quit all the debate about what the resolutions are or weren't. Go read them for yourselves people.

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

Somehow I doubt that the DPKO is confused about its own numbers.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/

The US only contributes 2.53% more to the UN the Japan.

Look

They also haven't fully paid thier dues since Bush came into Office. ~5 years or so.

Look

The UN coudl survive just fine without the US Jerason.

Your "military might makes right" attitude is why the rets of the worlds hates us. (the us)

The poor nations have the option of supplying troops for Peacekeeping operations in lieu of directly paying their financial obligations to the UN. The UN then generously pays something like $1k per soldier / month which goes right back to that member country paying off their aforementioned fees to the UN. Since they have more people than $, you can guess how it works out.

see:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q7.htm

and draw your own conclusions.

So make no mistake, without US backing, the UN would be nothing.

So, does that mean we should obey the US just because they got more money than us?

Fine! Let Bill Gates control the internet because he's got more money than everybody else. After all, Bill Gates has donated lots of money to charity! All welcome our Microsoft Overlord!

I hope this sarcasm exposes the logical flaw in your argument. Just because the US gives more money to the UN, doesn't give them the rights to CONTROL what the UN do. Is there a law in the UN that say that whoever gives more money, can buy the wills of the other countries?

Chapter and page, please?

Second, know that democracy in the US is a fallacy.
[begin premise]
A bipartisan system which replaces popular votes with electoral votes controls the way in which future governors and presidents will be elected. If I were a US citizen, I'd know that I might have the right to vote for an independent candidate, but I'd know also, that my vote will be worth NOTHING unless i can convince 51% of my state to vote for that candidate. Why can't I choose someone who's _NOT_ democrat nor republican? The US govt. has stolen the control from the people they should serve.
[end premise]

Now, how does that matter to us the world? Simple! If the US citizens aren't able to effectively choose who will rule them, how dare some americans, tell the United Nations who will rule a GLOBAL resource such as the internet? Huh?

Third, if the UN is corrupted, that's because of the people currently in charge, _NOT_ because of the UN per-se. Otherwise, why not declare the US law as invalid, just because judges and presidents are corrupted?

Fourth and Finally,the UN is composed of 191 countries, don't you think those countries have the RIGHT to decide who will rule over a network they will use?

I rest my case.

Just thought I might point out before you go spouting off you assumptions, here http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/200 5/aug2005_2.pdf are the personnel contributions to UN peace keeping missions as of August 2005, as you will see the U.S. is very far down the list, far from providing this bulk of forces. I would like to see where you got the figures manetary contribution. Nice to see you post you BS anonymously

US Citizen is violating at least the spirit of the law by using AllOfMP3.com...

Better for me that I am NOT a US Citizen as other 6'180'596,000 persons in this world.

"[...] fails to include any clause in their contracts (if they signed any) that prohibits them from making off with tech developed under his banner, and he gets mad at Yahoo!"

IANAL, but in Canada, as far as I recall, there were a few cases of lawsuits for violation of non-competition clauses that were lost based on violation of the clauses violating human rights. I don't recall though if they were cases of "stealing" technology though.

[...]
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.

Awesome quote by the way.

Here is an example of Canadian Human (Economic) rights violations.

I can't go to a school that teaches in my language.

These were the only things I could find, and I tried really hard too.

Do you seriously believe that?

The three largest contributors in august 2005 are:
1. Pakistan (9,881)
2. Bangladesh (8,812)
3. India (6,321) ..
21. France (600) ...
29. USA (334)

To spell it out for you - France contributes almost twice as many! What's really interesting is that the top three nations are all neighbours - and used to belong to the same British controlled territory (India) - and are Muslim nations or have large populations of Muslims (present day India). Oh, and they're not exactly as rich as the US...

I'm sure you could find other sources to improve on these figures however the whole point is still valid - the US is not a large contributor compared with the rest of the world. The world is not incapable of functioning just because it's poor/undeveloped. Of course the US pays for a lot of it, but that's another matter isn't it?

Check out the United Nations "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".

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

There's the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Sounds lovely, no? Read further. Article 29, Section 3.

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

There's freedom of speech for everyone until it's contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations...

-- Credit to Neal Boortz (boortz.com) for this research

The UN has no principals placing individual rights above consensus and political expediency

No, it didn't.

The US signed Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction and thePROTOCOL FOR THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE IN WAR OF ASPHYXIATING, POISONOUS OR OTHER GASES, AND OF BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS OF WARFARE

Both of which allow having biological agents for peaceful and protective purposes. I.E. Exactly what the US is doing here.

But the last one brings to mind a stupid question: How is it that one repressive, corrupt government that jails its citizens for speaking out is a favored trade nation of the U.S., while another (to pick from a long list) is not?

Because the US govt, a large percentage of the population, and pretty much all US coporations are completely blinded by the prospect of chinese money (note, thats not actual money, just the future prospect of money). China has money, Cuba does not, there is your answer.

Its truly sad that a corporation here will trade 10 years of someone's life for some future unrealized profit potential. And for what? For passing along a note that could hardly be considered "state secrets". Yahoo's employees enjoy a basic set of human rights that the guy they helped jail was denied. Perhaps Yahoo should be exported to China where they can enjoy the full benefits of their Chinese counterparts (including censorship, lack of basic human rights - but hey at least they will have their profit).

Isn't this the logical conclusion of the Patriot Act?

On the road the US is on now, almost certainly so. In the founding days when the US had just acquired its freedoms from an oppressive monarchy I'm sure the constitution was held in a much higher regard than it is today. These days you have increasing restrictions on free speech, and corporations who have the ability to take land away from you that you own (backed by the supreme court of all insults!). I wonder how watered down the constitution will get before people take notice of their diminished rights. Eventually I imagine the logical conclusion would be that corporations (or govt) will be able to jail anyone they want for any infraction no matter how trivial (even perhaps ranting about it on slashdot).

What China did is violate the UN Charter of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm

I don't know if you're aware of this but China has been violating UN charters regarding human rights for as long as they have been in place. This is no news. A lot of other countries do it but they try to cover it up, China doesn't.

And why should they? UN is pretty much a defunct body. It has no real powers other than those of its constituents who, most of the time, can't agree amongst themselves.

I'm in a way peeved at Yahoo!. Just because your business is threatened you don't go around violating human rights. This kind of bad media doesn't hurt China but it sure will hurt Yahoo.

Infact, I'm going to go punish them now. Removing all my porn from Yahoo mail because porn is illegal in India!

Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

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 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19. 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.

Here's a little excerpt from the Stanford Encylopedia of the ideas behind the Charter:

1. The General Idea of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR; United Nations 1948b) sets out a list of over two dozen specific human rights that countries should respect and protect. We may group these specific rights into six or more families: security rights that protect people against crimes such as murder, massacre, torture, and rape; liberty rights that protect freedoms in areas such as belief, expression, association, assembly, and movement; political rights that protect the liberty to participate in politics through actions such as communicating, assembling, protesting, voting, and serving in public office; due process rights that protect against abuses of the legal system such as imprisonment without trial, secret trials, and excessive punishments; equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship, equality before the law, and nondiscrimination; and welfare rights (or "economic and social rights") that require provision of education to all children and protections against severe poverty and starvation. Another family that might be included is group rights. The UDHR does not include group rights, but subsequent treaties do. Group rights include protections of ethnic groups against genocide and the ownership by countries of their national territories and resources.

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

I'm not talking about US law, but yes, Yahoo is a US based company and can't directly violate certain laws.

Please read a bit more, if a country decides that they don't believe in copyright, you think the US is going to do nothing about it?

What if a corporation goes to a country were they can employ slave labor or have sweatshops with subhuman conditions. Is this allowed? Aren't these US based companies liable back here in the states?

It's the same thing here.

I'm arguing that we should IMPOSE on them a basic set of human rights, and I don't see what's wrong with that, specially when China is making absurd demands on our corporations in the first place.

Here's a starting place, and it's not unreasonable by any measure:
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I've noticed something: throughout your posts, you keep mixing up the concepts of "unlikely existance" and "certain in the absense of". European governements, European populace, and much of the American antiwar populace seriously doubted the existance of such weapons. That's why we wanted the inspections: to *verify* and *certify* Iraq as WMD-free.

You seem to be hung up on the notion of certainty. Nothing in this world is ever certain - let alone when you're trying to verify quantities of objects destroyed in explosions a decade earlier. The European community and American antiwar community *seriously doubted* the existance, based on the available evidence.

The evidence *was* very dubious, and that's the reason for the aforementioned serious doubts and the insistance on inspections to verify Iraq's disarmament and certify it as weapons free.

My claim is that the notions that you advance are revisionist

What the heck? Did you not bloody well read the links that I gave you that I prepared *BEFORE THE WAR*? How can you call something that I prepared before the war "revisionist"?

If you were certain Iraq had no WMD

See, there you go with the word "certain". The proper phrase is "reasonable doubt". For example, if you check my Iraq FAQ from 2002, I described the case of Iraqi WMDs as "unlikely" - the stance taken by the majority of Europeans. You're the only one in this conversation talking about certainty.

who turned out to be correct not through analysis

Give me a frigging break. I've probably read more pages of IAEA, UNSCOM, and UNMOVIC documents in the past four years than you've read newspaper pages. I suggest you start reading. You'd probably be amazed at what they were saying, and what wasn't being reported in the US, in the months leading up to the invasion. For example, lets look at the four central conclusions of the IAEA's report right before we invaded, shall we?

* There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

* There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

* There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.

* Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.

How *dare* you try and pretend like I was just pulling this out of my arse at the time? I was all but quoting the inspection teams with my views, as weas the majority of Europe. I suggest you bloody well better read before you reply again.

Again misrepresentation of my point

Quoting you is a misrepresentation of your point?

According to Robert Boyd (mirror), The Air Force's senior intelligence analyst:

Iraq had been suspected of trying to develop remotely piloted aircraft for more than a decade, starting with attempts to convert Soviet-made MiG-21 fighter planes. When that failed, Iraqi authorities began experimenting in the mid-1990s with transforming the Czech L-29, a trainer jet, into a UAV. That effort also went nowhere, ending in 2001, Boyd said.

The Iraqis then focused on developing several t

I've noticed something: throughout your posts, you keep mixing up the concepts of "unlikely existance" and "certain in the absense of". European governements, European populace, and much of the American antiwar populace seriously doubted the existance of such weapons. That's why we wanted the inspections: to *verify* and *certify* Iraq as WMD-free.

You seem to be hung up on the notion of certainty. Nothing in this world is ever certain - let alone when you're trying to verify quantities of objects destroyed in explosions a decade earlier. The European community and American antiwar community *seriously doubted* the existance, based on the available evidence.

The evidence *was* very dubious, and that's the reason for the aforementioned serious doubts and the insistance on inspections to verify Iraq's disarmament and certify it as weapons free.

My claim is that the notions that you advance are revisionist

What the heck? Did you not bloody well read the links that I gave you that I prepared *BEFORE THE WAR*? How can you call something that I prepared before the war "revisionist"?

If you were certain Iraq had no WMD

See, there you go with the word "certain". The proper phrase is "reasonable doubt". For example, if you check my Iraq FAQ from 2002, I described the case of Iraqi WMDs as "unlikely" - the stance taken by the majority of Europeans. You're the only one in this conversation talking about certainty.

who turned out to be correct not through analysis

Give me a frigging break. I've probably read more pages of IAEA, UNSCOM, and UNMOVIC documents in the past four years than you've read newspaper pages. I suggest you start reading. You'd probably be amazed at what they were saying, and what wasn't being reported in the US, in the months leading up to the invasion. For example, lets look at the four central conclusions of the IAEA's report right before we invaded, shall we?

* There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

* There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

* There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.

* Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.

How *dare* you try and pretend like I was just pulling this out of my arse at the time? I was all but quoting the inspection teams with my views, as weas the majority of Europe. I suggest you bloody well better read before you reply again.

Again misrepresentation of my point

Quoting you is a misrepresentation of your point?

According to Robert Boyd (mirror), The Air Force's senior intelligence analyst:

Iraq had been suspected of trying to develop remotely piloted aircraft for more than a decade, starting with attempts to convert Soviet-made MiG-21 fighter planes. When that failed, Iraqi authorities began experimenting in the mid-1990s with transforming the Czech L-29, a trainer jet, into a UAV. That effort also went nowhere, ending in 2001, Boyd said.

The Iraqis then focused on developing several t

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, written by a rather famous American feminist and signed into law as a treaty under the UN's original charter in 1948- both the woman and the child have EQUAL rights in this situation. Article 2 states we can't discriminate just because the fetus hasn't been born yet. Article 3 states every *body*, not every *person* has a right to life. And Article 26 requires that mothers and children be given a separate economic structure to insure that children have their rights. It's that last one I disagree with the traditional right wing on, AND with the pro-choicers. I say, we need to expand WIC to cover the 9 months before birth, all prenatal care, regardless of income. We need to insure not only ultrasounds, but also proper nutrition and medical care for fetuses. We need to have a true *birthright*- that the federal government pays for birth costs in US hospitals. I think that if we did so, you'd see an instant 50-75% reduction in abortion- and a slow reduction down to the 2% of abortions that should be legal and we can't avoid.

Lol. Well, this is becoming truelly ridiculous.

No argument there. Because even when you're blustering about how much proof you have, you don't cite any.

No, I mean your continious use of fallacies, ad hominem attacks, skewed analogies and complete myopic reasoning, together with layers of sophistic constructs and demagogic blabberings which you try to substantiate by providing links to pages which do not only not support your position, but don't even have anything which *could* substantiate the claim you made.

Another strawman? How ... predictable. Notice: still nothing factual to refute anything from your side.

Your assertation I 'mistyped' is yet another example of how you are intellectual dishonest.

Nah, just a desperate attempt at humor due to boredom. It's so easy to discredit your reactionary position that I have to amuse myself somehow.

It stands as you continue to hide between the "we were not alone doing it" curtains, indeed.

Calling the argument names does not disprove it, so you are quite right: it stands quite firmly.

Really? You mean one of your links, who did actually go into the matter of the claim, namely that the UN had strong doubts about the WMD, by the time the USA invaded Iraq? I don't think so.

Read the link I posted to Hans Blix' report. As I said, you don't bother reading any sources. You don't want facts, you want emotional nonsense. Because that justifies your non-position of 'do nothing, blame everybody else'.

Minus the above point, of course.

So now you only claim that one point I made was false? Specifically, the provable claim that the chief weapons inspector of the United Nations believed in 2003 that Iraq had WMD? Since you undoubtedly will not go back to check my citation I'll even re-quote it for you:

UNMOVIC shares the sense of urgency felt by the Council to use inspection as a path to attain, within a reasonable time, verifiable disarmament of Iraq. Under the resolutions I have cited, it would be followed by monitoring for such time as the Council feels would be required. The resolutions also point to a zone free of weapons of mass destruction as the ultimate goal. - Hans Blix, The Security Council, 27 January 2003: An Update on Inspection

Again - and this is a point you did not address the first time - that does not sound like the language of a person who does not believe WMD exist in the country being inspected. One would suspect language for that case to be more like 'There are no weapons there!', or 'This is a colossal waste of time!'.

Now I will grant you that Blix and quite a few others changed their tune after we had already invaded the country. But anyone can change their stance when all the facts are known. It's a political move, done by someone who actually thinks a lot like you: soapbox against the US to conceal your own faults. It's a quite common strategy. Many governments use it to distract the attention of their own populace from problems at home. Canada is a perfect example of this. If you can villify someone that the people can do nothing but bitch about, they won't worry about their own problems.

Again, any valid critique of these presented facts is completely welcome. Since you have only claimed that I was wrong on this single point, and I have re-cited my proof (which you have never even attempted to factually discredit), will you now concede your error?

Irrelevant? LOL. The beauty of this is that, if you consider this irrelavant, then your former point becomes automatically void in a way *you* can't even deny.

Again you make an assertion without backing it up at all. In order for your statem

Does the charter not state that war should not be waged without the approval of the security counsel? (Don't try to agrue that it was a legal war becasue we were enforcing the resolutions of an organisation whose laws say that our acts of enforcement were illegal, there is just too much cognitive dissonance there)

Wow- talk about cognitive dissonance. The Security Council did approve of military action over a dozen times.

Honestly it has been a while since I read 687... You are going to have to refresh my memory as to how it is concretecompliance is possible. If I recall correctly that is one of them that calls on Iraq to prove it is free of weapons by allowing inspections. Well, the inspectors didn't find anything (significant) and yet many were convinced that Iraq had banned weapons.

Iraq was ordered to unconditionally accept under international supervision the destruction of all of their WMDs and all related subsystems and components, research, and manufacturing facilities. This was not a detective work- Saddam was required to bring us to his weapons sites and let us watch him destroy them. He never did. Here is a chronology of events during the 1990's to see what he did instead. Iraq was NOT in compliance with the UN mandate, which was confirmed by the 1200 page ISG report.

So how exactly is it possible to prove that you don't have something when the accuser can simply claim that you must be hidding it?

Once again, I refer you to the documents that UNSCOM and UNMOVIC sent to Iraq which clearly detailed what Iraq needed to do to satisfy the commissions. Iraq was supposed to be an active participant, but instead they blatantly lied to and obstructed the inspectors for 12 years.

SOA has gone alot further than having graduates that became criminals. SOA explicitly trained people in the use of guerilla tactics against populations to inspire fear as a means to influence elections.

I would love to know where you got this "information" about the operation of a secret training facility.

Some of this is true, some is almost hyperbolically exadgerated. But I will say that if I were in charge of national security, I would go through this process:

1. Gather information

We did this for over 12 years.

2. Identify threats
3. Prioritize threats

Who else in the world was in defiance of over a dozen unanimous Chapter VII Security Council resolutions? Who else had illegal WMD capabilities and had shown a willingness to use these weapons in the past? Who else had supported dozens of terrorist organizations for 25 years and had tried to direct terrorist attacks against us multiple times over the past decade? Sure, there are other threats, but Saddam was pretty high up on that list.

4. Determine what action has the best likelyhood of positive results

Seeding democracy in the Middle East has a huge likelihood of long term positive results.

5. Determine if the likely results of that action are better than the likely results of inaction

The ISG reported that Iraq had the supplies, procurement systems, and infrastructure in place to go to full scale mustard gas production within 2 months. Our allies warned us that Saddam was plotting more terrorist attacks against us- how long would you have liked to wait?

6. Act (if applicable under step 5)

And I am glad we did.

We are in violation of the freakin' charter!

Why? Because TamMan2000 says so? You are going to have to do better than that.

There was nothing illegal or against the UN charter with our 2003 invasion of Iraq. On the contrary, the UN charter mandates that member states enforce Chapter VII resolutions, which we did.

And the fact that we have a security counsel veto is the only thing that has kept chapter VII resolutions off our ass. That and the fact that nobody wants to try to enforce one on the sole remaining super power, Iraq is easy to pick on, the US, not so much...
In addition to that, many of the 17 resolutions Iraq was in violation of were written specifically so that compliance was either impossible or subjective (cheezedawg, you have WMD, prove otherwise), in other words they were written so that their garaunteed violation could be political capital.

That is baloney. Have you read resolution 687 or any of the subsequent resolutions? How about this 1999 letter that UNSCOM gave Iraq about how to satisfy the commission. Or the 175 page Unresolved Disarmament Issues document that UNMOVIC delivered to Iraq in 2003. Iraq's requirements to resolve these issues were very clearly communicated to them- they just ignored them.

Does the phrase Salvadoran death-squad mean any thing to you? How about School of the Americas?

Are you unaware of these, or are these not considered supporting terrorism to achieve our goals in your book?

No, I don't consider the SOA as supporting terrorism, because there is no evidence that they do. Sure, some people affiliated with it later turned out to be criminals, but if this is your standard, then places like the Univ of Michigan, UCLA, Wichita State, and pretty much any institution in the world "support" terrorism.

The use of force was threatened, and the demands went unheaded, but the resolution to back up the threat was never passed, correct?

The authorization to use military force was given in resolution 678. You should read it sometime.

Besides, you are dodging the real issue on this question. I did not say Iraq was not a threat. I said everyone is a threat. The point is that if you set out to prove that any group is a threat, and you have a decent spin/research staff, you will suceed. Of course Iraq was found to be a threat, it is a forgone conclusion...

No, you are dodging the issue. Iraq was a country that in the recent past had illegally tried to expand its borders (twice), launched unprovoked missile attacks on 3 of its neighbors, used chemical weapons against its own people and against Iran, was in open defiance of international orders to disarm, directly supported dozens of terrorist organizations, had tried to direct terrorist attacks against the United States multiple times, and was trying to plan even more attacks against us up until the invasion. If you can't see this as a unique threat, then I am glad that you are not in charge of our national security.

In addition to this threat, there were a number of strategic goals of the invasion, with countering the hate and oppression in the area with freedom and democracy at the top of that list. For lots of reasons, Iraq was the best place to start with these goals. It isn't perfect, but war never is.

We are in violation of the freakin' charter!

Why? Because TamMan2000 says so? You are going to have to do better than that.

There was nothing illegal or against the UN charter with our 2003 invasion of Iraq. On the contrary, the UN charter mandates that member states enforce Chapter VII resolutions, which we did.

And the fact that we have a security counsel veto is the only thing that has kept chapter VII resolutions off our ass. That and the fact that nobody wants to try to enforce one on the sole remaining super power, Iraq is easy to pick on, the US, not so much...
In addition to that, many of the 17 resolutions Iraq was in violation of were written specifically so that compliance was either impossible or subjective (cheezedawg, you have WMD, prove otherwise), in other words they were written so that their garaunteed violation could be political capital.

That is baloney. Have you read resolution 687 or any of the subsequent resolutions? How about this 1999 letter that UNSCOM gave Iraq about how to satisfy the commission. Or the 175 page Unresolved Disarmament Issues document that UNMOVIC delivered to Iraq in 2003. Iraq's requirements to resolve these issues were very clearly communicated to them- they just ignored them.

Does the phrase Salvadoran death-squad mean any thing to you? How about School of the Americas?

Are you unaware of these, or are these not considered supporting terrorism to achieve our goals in your book?

No, I don't consider the SOA as supporting terrorism, because there is no evidence that they do. Sure, some people affiliated with it later turned out to be criminals, but if this is your standard, then places like the Univ of Michigan, UCLA, Wichita State, and pretty much any institution in the world "support" terrorism.

The use of force was threatened, and the demands went unheaded, but the resolution to back up the threat was never passed, correct?

The authorization to use military force was given in resolution 678. You should read it sometime.

Besides, you are dodging the real issue on this question. I did not say Iraq was not a threat. I said everyone is a threat. The point is that if you set out to prove that any group is a threat, and you have a decent spin/research staff, you will suceed. Of course Iraq was found to be a threat, it is a forgone conclusion...

No, you are dodging the issue. Iraq was a country that in the recent past had illegally tried to expand its borders (twice), launched unprovoked missile attacks on 3 of its neighbors, used chemical weapons against its own people and against Iran, was in open defiance of international orders to disarm, directly supported dozens of terrorist organizations, had tried to direct terrorist attacks against the United States multiple times, and was trying to plan even more attacks against us up until the invasion. If you can't see this as a unique threat, then I am glad that you are not in charge of our national security.

In addition to this threat, there were a number of strategic goals of the invasion, with countering the hate and oppression in the area with freedom and democracy at the top of that list. For lots of reasons, Iraq was the best place to start with these goals. It isn't perfect, but war never is.

Are you aware that the United States is in violation of UN mandate?

Chapter VII resolutions are the only UN resolutions that are enforceable in any context. The United States has never been the subject of a Chapter VII resolution. Iraq, on the other hand, was in violation of 17 of them. Try to keep your comparisons on topic.

Are you aware that the United States has recently supported (perhaps currently supporting) terrorists?

It has never been US policy to support terrorism or use terrorism to achieve its goals. Your moral equivalence is crap.

Did you know that to some degree, every nation on the face of the earth is a threat to every other nation's national security?

The UN security council sat down 17 times and unanimously decided that Iraq's weapons were a threat to international peace and security, and they specifically authorized the use of military force to disarm them of those weapons. This is not some story that President Bush cooked up to justify an invasion- this is documented history. Why are you trying to downplay that?

These (article 12). Please realize that everyone does not live in the USA...

Except that the UN already has dozens of affiliated agencies that handle interconnecting systems between nations. For example: International Maritime Organization, Universal Postal Union (a bit presumptuous, claiming the whole univere), International Telecommunications Union, etc, etc. Here is a chart of the whole UN organization:
United Nations System

In fact, that last one, the Internation Telecommunications Union (ITU), might provide a good parallel to what a proposed UN internet agency might be like. The ITU basically provides the standards and arbitration for how the worldwide telephone network work. For example, they hand out the country dialing prefixes. What the ITU does sounds a lot like what ICANN does, in their respecive realms.

Anyway, my point is that the UN is a lot more than just the Security Council/General Assembly/Secretary General parts that most frequently make the news. UN agencies are already impacting your life every time you make an overseas call, or buy a t-shirt made in China.

if the Bush administration had such clear intelligence that Saddam had the WMDs, why couldn't they share that information with the Weapon inspectors?

Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors when Clinton was president. From 1998 until the war began in 2003, there were no inspectors in the country. Further, he didn't offer to bring them back until the invasion was imminent with a carrier group in the persian gulf.

"After the war began?" The inspections resumed in 2003, under the threat of war. Sure, we now realize that the White House had by that point decided that there would be an invasion, but it's the basis for that decision that's controversial. Thus, the original question stands: the inspectors were there, the world was watching, what was the rush?

(In answering that question, the contemporary pro-war mindset concentrated on two general points: one was that the UN inspectors wouldn't find anything anyway because the UN is a pack of America-hating sissies so can't we hurry up and have our war; the second was the 45 MINUTES FROM DOOM baloney. The first point effectively begged the question; the second was more of that brilliant intelligence analysis that's been such a hallmark of the War on Terra.)

Article 19.

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.

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

Do you mean when the UN recognises a USA law as binding? Or when the UN recognises those rights guaranteed by the first amendment?

See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular articles 18 - 21:

"Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

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.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

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

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

These are compatible with and more or less equivalent to the USA's first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So. You were saying?

This is modded insightful? A suggestive question about the achievements of one of the most important organizations in the world? (if you want an answer read it at their f**king website!

How many mass murderers has the UN stopped?

The UN isn't in the business of overthrowing governments.

I think you might want to read up a bit on why, exactly, the United Nations was founded. This article may or may not be believed in its entirety, but the fact of the matter is one way or another, the UN was conceived during WWII and was officially founded directly afterwards specifically to prevent dictators running roughshod over their neighbors all over the world. That was the original mandate, and that's why the five permanent members of the security council are who they are.

Even the UN's official history is perfectly up front about its origins as a tool of the Allies in fighting Germany and Japan during WWII.

Now you see why many people in the US (and other countries) think the UN has gotten so far off track from its original mandate that it is no longer relevant. It was intended to at least contain, occasionally fight and if necessary overthrow dangerous governments like those of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Whether you want to believe it or not, and whether you agree with that cause, that is the truth.

I am no neo-con (or even a traditional-con); I voted against Bush both times. But I get just as annoyed as anyone when people speak of the UN as if its purpose is to keep anyone from fighting, ever. That was not why it was created. It was created to keep rogue states in check - that is the entire reason it exists. It was created during wartime, with a mandate that specifically told member nations to keep fighting. Yet nowadays, it is only ever used as an excuse to do nothing because of competing political interests from those who have something to gain by standing on the sidelines.

As for the UN taking over the internet... read any of what I just posted (either the two links or my commentary, whether you subscribe to the same view or not) and tell me how this would make a lick of sense.

No, neither is access to paper to print on, or printing presses, but we still take for granted that the government should not seize printing presses based on what ideas they were used to disseminate, and that that is a natural continuation of a basic human right, the freedom of expression (UN Declaration of the Human Rights, article 19, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html [un.org]).

So, if you regulate the Internet to weed out uncomfortable ideas, you are indeed violating the UN declaration of the Human Rights, to which I believe China is a party.

I wonder how this relates to software patents. Really.

If there is any chance for those of us who are EU citizens to go to the European Court of Human Rights. (Against potential future swpat laws)

Once again, I don't think Internet access is a Basic Human Right, so I don't see any ethical issues here.

No, neither is access to paper to print on, or printing presses, but we still take for granted that the government should not seize printing presses based on what ideas they were used to disseminate, and that that is a natural continuation of a basic human right, the freedom of expression (UN Declaration of the Human Rights, article 19, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html).

So, if you regulate the Internet to weed out uncomfortable ideas, you are indeed violating the UN declaration of the Human Rights, to which I believe China is a party.

Also:
Every country has the sovereign right to make its own laws.

Indeed, but by signing said convention, you are giving up a part of the sovereignity of the country (article 2).

An objection could be made, I suppose, that blocking Child Porn is completely different from blocking information about Democracy, but I propose that it is merely a difference of degree.

Do that. However, not that the freedom of expression protects the exchange of ideas and information. It can be argued that child porn is not an opinion. In all western democracies that prohibit child porn, it is still legal to have opinions about child porn (that it should be legal, for instance).

The comparison had been more accurate if you had compared with how some companies cooperate with the French government to stop foreign nazi sites and goods to be served to the French public. The quite common European prohibition against racist incitement and other hate crimes are indeed an limitation of the freedom of expression (well-founded as it may be).