Slashdot Mirror

Outrage... growing. Please, take a look at the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Among the several articles China *clearly* violates I will reproduce the ones affected by filtering.

Filtering e-mail violates 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.

In general, filtering the Web violates:

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 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. [...]

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. [...]

So I conclude that yes, access to a free non-censored Internet IS a Human Right.

IMO its ethically required! I cannot say I like the fact that Chinese gov is trying to block the free flow of information, but I like it even less when people seem to think if you aren't doing the exact same thing as the US you are evil or not ethical!

And who exactly said that, you? China's censorship is unethical not because it disagrees with the USA, but because it IS unethical.

There are different cultures and different ideals. Just because someone feels differently than you doesn't make them unethical. Also if someone helps that person who thinks differently than you, the person helping isn't nessesarily unethical.

Really? So for all those companies which might enjoy, oh say, slave trading, its ok right? According to your logic its not necessarily unethical because perhaps it hasn't been expressly banned everywhere. And for banks and other companies which might help said slave traders, I guess they would be ethically ok with it too. Sheesh, your a MORON. You don't need laws to tell you whats ethical and whats not. The USA isn't the moral gold standard, and no one says it is, despite your stereotyping of it in that way.

I know "your either with us or against us", "you either do stuff like we do or your evil" sentiments are pretty popular in the US, but different is not wrong.

Again, really? Take a survey did you? Your stereotyping of whats "popular" in the US is way off base. I'd be willing to bet most people call things unethical when they are in fact unethical, not when they violate some US law. I think common sense is a fair way to tell whats ethical and whats not, but if that fails you here is a list to get you started. Try looking up Article 19. The chinese banning of people discussing the mere topic of freedom is unethical regardless of who's laws it does or does not violate.

I love it when people crib from sources and don't attribute them.

Plagarize this, beyotch

http://www.sumeria.net/politics/usa.html

Originally from "Rogue Nation" by William Blum.

I also love how there's a biting qualifier to each entry:

"Killed Defenseless Indians"
"Killed War Veterans"
"Returned Dictator to power"

No bias there, eh?

I submit that the US is in good company here... take a look at the UN web http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/index.asp site, and do a little research. Figure out which contries have seen UN "occupation" and "regime change" and ask yourself if the people in those countries are any better off because of it.

You'd be interested to see that the UN's involvement in peace keeping efforts have regularly grown in magnitude (in sizes of forces deployed); yet have infrequently solved the crises that they are supposedly there to address.

They frequently leave these places in worse ways then they found them, yet no one shouts that they "Hate Kofi" and that he's an idiot.

You big bean-eatin double-standard-havin' goal-post-moving whiners.

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.

This map of Chad shows that there is something water related there. It is just north of Koro-Toro, a ways south of Faya-Largeau (although there are similar features around that city according to the map).

I think the feature is a semi-permanent lake, one that may fill up in some seasons, and then possibly evaporate almost completely away (like the lake in Death Valley). Lake Chad was once huge (the Pale-Chadian Sea) and some of those semi-permanent lakes might be all that is left of the sea in the north. This link suggests a cause:

Lake Chad, located in the southwestern part of the basin at an altitude of 282 meters, surprisingly does not mark the basin's lowest point; instead, this is found in the Bodele and Djourab regions in the north-central and northeastern parts of the country, respectively. This oddity arises because the great stationary dunes (ergs) of the Kanem region create a dam, preventing lake waters from flowing to the basin's lowest point.

Djourab is in about the right place to be near these features.

Like this? Even if you think the UN is stupid, human rights are not an "American" thing, they are a human thing. America doesn't define my rights, China doesn't define my rights, and you don't define my rights. People have the right, and the obligation, to speak out in favor of liberty everywhere.

That's a valid point on a philosophical level. When there's no universally recognized moral authority (such as a supernatural being of some kind), there's no way to tell right from wrong that is beyond contestation.

From a more down-to-earth political viewpoint however, there are such things as universal human rights, which include, amongst others, freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Chinese law is in violation of those human rights, just like law in nazi-Germany and Japan during WWII, or laws in the former GDR that allowed people to be shot on the spot if they tried to flee the country.

Since WWII, the international community has developed an international legal framework to protect basic human rights independent of national law. There's, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Although it remains a controversial issue, human rights related international law is increasingly considered jus cogens, meaning it applies universally, regardless of a countries national laws or whether it has actually signed a human rights treaty or not. This is especially true for issues like slavery or torture, that are illegal in all cases. Regretfully, censorship law is probably in a somewhat greyer area, though.

Apart from all that legal mumbo jumbo, the question what gives the Chinese government the right to decide what's to be published and what's not, is just as valid as yours.

Interestingly, Google has embraced older versions of the world, versions which have since been updated by the UN to be more accurate. Current UN world map http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/other/wor ld00.pdf

The most interesting difference in the size discrepency with the size of the northern hemisphere (first world countries) and the southern hemisphere (the third world). In Google's map, North America and eurasia are huge, but the UN map is a bit more balanced. This may explain why the satalite vision of the google world map matches the map version so poorly on the top and bottom.

The question is whether you want to give China (or other entities) the power to decide whether your set of "rights" is morally correct. According to our current government's notions, for instance, our citizens do not have a "right" to health care. Many countries believe the opposite. Some governments believe males have the "right" to multiple wives based on their own moral strictures. If you feel enough moral superiority to judge others' determination of rights, you must allow your own set to be similarly judged.

Don't get me wrong... I do not apologize for those nations of the world who trample on what I see as the rights that any human should be accorded. But I understand that what I see as a right might be called a privilege in another state.

I'd like nothing better to see the nations of the world get together and agree on... oh, let's say a Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I'd like it even better if the folks who got together to make one up would actually follow it. But until that day comes, remember that any time you point the finger of rights at one country, you're pointing three back at yourself.

In short, you had a choice between striking a civilian target, or suffer military losses. They picked the former. What would you call that? Yes, it was easier. It was also easier to hit WTC than to take on the US military. It was more effective to nuke the Japanese. Using planes against civilian buildings were also more effective than to hit bunkers. In short, you use the ends to justify the means. If [from an Al-Quaida members point of view] you believe to have a legitimate grievance against the USA, what is to stop them from justifying it exactly the same way you justify bombing Japan?

In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act". [2] This does not define what would count as an "intention" to cause death or injury to non-combatants. A controversy exists over whether this proposed definition would include an action like the American nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities at the end of World War II. (source)

There are 51 founding memebers of the UN.

http://www.un.org/Overview/growth.htm

The reason is because of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which most UN members have signed.

http://nobelprize.org/peace/educational/nuclear_we apons/readmore.html

Ok, I think I have a suitable smoking gun document.

First you'll need this definition:
ICT = Information (and) Communication Technologies.

Document. At first it sounds potentially innocent, but about half way through it becomes explicit that it is talking about a 2010 agenda for a Single European Information Space, a unified Trusted interoperable DRM Information Society. The source for it is the European Union's official portal for "institutions and bodies of the European Union, including the European Parliament, the Council of the Union, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank."

The following list is merely to cite the government bodies, not specific documents...
The United Nations Press Release establishing the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). WGIG still seems relatively small and relatively early in their work. Far bigger and more developed is the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). And of course there's the Whitehouse with the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, almost a Megabyte worth of PDFs I haven't even begun to dig through.

-

• UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA - Article 101
  
  Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
  
  (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
  
  (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
  
  (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
  
  (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
  
  (c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

How about the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The US *is* still part of the UN right? But I think the GP is correct in saying that the article isn't about privacy. As far as I can tell the authorities used the proper channels to get these guys.

Robert McNamara, former US Secretary of Defense, warned this week that "quite credible individuals had said that they had never been more fearful of a nuclear detonation than now". Bush's White House exposed Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent in Africa protecting us from WMD development, as revenge on her husband, the former ambassador who debunked Bush's fake "Niger uranium for Iraq" memo that lied us into war in his State of the Union speech. And John Bolton, former ambassador (under Reagan / Bush Sr) to Honduras, where he covered up the illegal secret war bases attacking neighboring Nicaragua in Iran/Contra, is next to be sent to represent the US in the UN - which he'd like to destroy. Has anyone else noticed it's the same jerks in Washington boosting the same WMD programs in enemy countries? We've got WMD foxes guarding our henhouse - no wonder WMD tech sales are skyrocketing. Our WMD officials are all on the take from the global WMD arms dealers.

Forcing companies to delete unneeded data and preventing them from reusing consumer data in unauthorized ways are two great steps forward. These policies have great security benifits, and come close to forcing marketers to use 'opt-in' schemes. They also prevent information from being misused in unanticipated ways in the future.

I wish the US constitution considered privacy to be a human right like the rest of the free world does.

I know it's confusing for you to understand that Amsterdam isn't actually in Britain, but please try to bear with me...

You are mixing up sales figures with market size. The European market isn't as saturated.

Here are the ACTUAL market size figures, according to the United Nations population divison

Population of North America: 314 million
Population of Japan: 127 million
Population of Europe: 727 million

314+127 is less than 727

That is a mere assertion, driven by fear and ignorance of reality. You need to get out, and stop viewing reality with tunnel vision. I notice that you are now posting anonymously now. Perhaps deep down you know that you are wrong, and fear losing your precious /. karma as a result? Very laughable if you ask me.

Here are some things you may wish to read. These things kinda suck for the respective countries, but their loss is the US's gain. And like it or not, the brain drain starts as H1-Bs:

• How To Plug Europe's Brain Drain
• How extensive is the brain drain?
• How to reverse Africa's brain drain

And now the signs that the US's recent paranoia is self destructive

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

Jesus, even planned parenthood, national organization for women, marxists.org, infidels.org and the UN are still up. Bushitler is really dropping the ball for the reich-publi-fascists...

• Belgium : 97.3%
  
• South Korea : 82.5%
  
• Canada : 78.9%
  
• USA : 77.4%
  
• Norway : 75.0%
  
• Switzerland : 67.3%
  
• China : 36.7%
  
• India : 27.9%
  

So I agree with you but in reality I rather spend money on an organization that MAY however remote the possibility to make a difference. And in reality they do help, its just that its more of a news topic when they do fail. And in my opinion they did fail in Sudan http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/bnote.htm

"Bzzt."

The mechanics of the entire UN demanded numerous times that Iraq disarm. Numerous times. This was only the latest.

I know that moral relativists like yourself like to think that the US and Iraq are more or less the "same thing", on equal footing, just with different philosophies.

First of all, an apology. I didn't mean to come trough that way (and I had to look up what jingoistic meant :-).

That said, my statement is not entirely biased, as you undoubtedly don't know, and I will try to prove (mod me offtopic for this :P ):

Uruguay has an iliteracy rate of 2%, while the US has a slightly higher 3%
Life expectancy is similar, with the US being slightly higher at about 76 years to Uruguay's 74
Slightly higher schooling expectancy for US citizens, at an average 16 years to Uruguay's 15 (both well above average, trailing only the nordic countries and Australia)
The Economist, which can be said to be biased, ranked the US at 13th for quality of life, with Uruguay at 43rd, behind Argentina and Chile, in 2005. However, it is believed in South America that Uruguay actually has the best quality of life, as seen in the World Institute for Development Economics Research (maybe less biased than the Economist), which places both the US and Uruguay in the top 20 countries (the US at 2nd, Uruguay at 18th).
Other sources state that Montevideo has a similar quality of life than New York

Sources:UN's statistics page http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/so cind
The Economisthttp://www.economist.com/theworldin/inter national/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3372495&d=2005
FinFactshttp://www.finfacts.com/
http://www.wider.unu.edu/conference/conference-200 3-2/conference%202003-2-papers/papers-pdf/Rahman%2 0Tauhidur%20250403.pdf

-------- SOCIAL SECURITY ---------
Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

-------- 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.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

-------- A _GOOD_ JOB / HEALTH INSURANCE ---------
Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

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

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Why?? I thought one purpose of the internet was to allow scientists in Universities to share information throughout the world. Again, I haven't heard of any news from reputable news sources like CNN.com. I couldn't find any press releases on http://www.un.org/ either.

But finding un-biased opinions is becoming increasingly difficult.

You want UN-biased opinions? http://www.un.org/

You might want to take a look at UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002), unanimously adopted by UNSEC in November 2002 - including France - just three months before US/UK-led action.

It reiterates that Iraq was in MATERIAL BREACH of previous, binding Chapter VII Security Council resolutions that had already authorized the use of force. So to use your example, "France, et al" had been "letting Iraq off the hook" for the better part of 12 years. The only person "lying" here is you to yourself.

There were, previous to March 2003, HUNDREDS OF TONS of WMD unaccounted for, that remain unaccounted for to this day. These were weapons Iraq was already previously known to be in possession of. Further, before 1998 and after 2002, UN inspectors were NEVER - repeat, NEVER - given full and unfettered access to any and all sites and facilities. That alone subverts the very concept of inspections. Not to mention that NO inspectors were in Iraq at all for almost five years.

Of course, to focus in on WMD is really ridiculous, since there are numerous reasons we initiated action in the mideast that are a hell of a lot more important and far-reaching than whether or not Saddam still had WMD.

You should probably read all of 1441, but I'll include the important part here for you:

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the

You might want to take a look at UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002), unanimously adopted by UNSEC in November 2002 - including France - just three months before US/UK-led action.

It reiterates that Iraq was in MATERIAL BREACH of previous, binding Chapter VII Security Council resolutions that had already authorized the use of force. So to use your example, "France, et al" had been "letting Iraq off the hook" for the better part of 12 years. The only person "lying" here is you to yourself.

There were, previous to March 2003, HUNDREDS OF TONS of WMD unaccounted for, that remain unaccounted for to this day. These were weapons Iraq was already previously known to be in possession of. Further, before 1998 and after 2002, UN inspectors were NEVER - repeat, NEVER - given full and unfettered access to any and all sites and facilities. That alone subverts the very concept of inspections. Not to mention that NO inspectors were in Iraq at all for almost five years.

Of course, to focus in on WMD is really ridiculous, since there are numerous reasons we initiated action in the mideast that are a hell of a lot more important and far-reaching than whether or not Saddam still had WMD.

You should probably read all of 1441, but I'll include the important part here for you:

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the

First of all, pasting something completely relevant and cogent to this topic was perfectly appropriate. And I understand it perfectly, thank you. It's apparently you who doesn't.

And no, a 1990 resolution does not mean that for all time everyone who feels like it can invade Iraq, claiming Iraq is in breach of a relevant resolution, that's just ridiculous.

So now it fails to be a binding resolution after a period of time? The conditions and specifics of the resolution were still at issue just as much 12 years later: the situation had never been resolved.

You further ignore resolution 1441 (a href=http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm>html), which was adopted by the whole of the Security Council on 8 November 2002.

It says, in part,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions [...]

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions [...]

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

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991) [...]

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998, [...]

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism [...]

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

You should really read the whole thing. It's rather straightforward.

And again, you are totally ignoring the fact the actions were taken, remember, inspectors were on the ground, hadn't found any WMDs and reported that they were making progress.

This is rich. Progress? NEVER were the inspectors, before 1998, or after 2002, allowed the unfettered access to any and all facilities, sites, and records that were required by the resolutions.

NEVER.

The "hadn't found any WMDs" argument is tired and irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that inspectors never, once, had unrestricted access as required. Not finding WMD under ANY conditions other than specified and required by the resolutions is meaningless. To this day, there are HUNDREDS OF TONS of WMD known to have been in Iraq's possession that are unaccounted for. It was Iraq's responsibility to either account for them in terms of their location or documented destruction, or to minimally provide unrestricted access to inspectors.

Iraq did neither for over a decade.

I'm astounded by your refusal to admit these facts to yourself, whether or not you agreed with the US action or policy in this area.

That's certainly one way of looking at it, though I'd point out that the early Americans did what you describe to a land that they'd never been to before, and America isn't a theocracy.

The Jews didn't flood in all at once after the Holocaust, either. True, there was a wave of immigration after World War II, but Jews had been moving to what is now Israel since the turn of the century and earlier.

In the early years of Israel's formation, it was proposed as a two-state deal, sort of like what the current "Road Map" is pointing towards, but with more land for the Arabs. The Jews accepted the two-state idea, the Arabs denied it, the Jews declared a state, the Arabs attacked and the hostilities began. After which, the Jews were booted from the surrounding Arab countries, and the Palestinians from Israel itself.

As of today, Muslims and Christians live in Israel, as citizens equal to any other. The Palestinians aren't citizens there; they've been camping on the borders for more than fifty years. Note that the Jews in the surrounding nations didn't see fit to do this.

--grendel drago

>> You never hear the small, positive stories.
>> The media want to see blood. It sells.

> How on earth can you compare "small positive
> stories" to the bloodbath in Rwanda?


Eradicating smallpox?
Now that really was genocide.

[..] none of those 13+ organizations you rattled off has been able to stop genocide in [..]

You never hear the small, positive stories. The media want to see blood. It sells.

Nothing happens unless there is a UN member or a coalition of UN members that has the means and the willingness to interfere. Other countries than the US do take on missions if they feel they have the means to pull it off.

What about France on the Ivory Coast? A quote:

"Without France, we would find ourselves in a second Rwanda," claimed Ibrahim Coulibaly, one of the rebels who took control of the north in September 2002, in an interview with Courrier International (Nov 17).

Or the UNMEE force in Ethiopia and Eritrea, where the Netherlands and Canada initially volunteered, but only after explicit assurances by the US through the media that they could call in US air support from bases in Saudi Arabia if needed. The force now mostly consists of troops from India, Jordania, and Kenya.

65,000 UN soldiers (excluding forces like the French one on the Ivory Coast) are currently serving in 16 UN operations worldwide, and most of those are succesful.

Srebrenica is a good example of what happens if you are willing but do not really have the means to pull it off yourself (and your 'ally' the US is secretly arming the side you are supposed to disarm according to your UN mandate). The Netherlands' force mistakenly assumed it could rely on air support by allies if needed, and the small force didn't have the means to take out Serbian tanks. The Serbs blocked munitions and arms supplies over the road for months before they attacked the enclave.

The US is the only country with a network of air force bases all over the world, and even the US would probably have had problems providing sufficient air lift and air support quickly in Rwanda. For smaller countries involvement in Rwanda could only have ended in embarassment.

All of this has hardly any bearing on the functioning of the UN bureaucracy. It is about cynical international diplomacy.

Then I have to explain to them that Wales is a nation

We can fairly easily determine what a nation is by looking at international bodies like the UN. And there, the Welsh are not represented by themselves, they are represented through the UK. No matter what illusions of independence you want to harbor, Wales is no more a "nation" than Texas is.

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

...
10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above

...
12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above;

...
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;

Just the US has ignored its own weapons treaty obligations in the past.

And just what weapons treaties has the US ignored? Are you referring to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the Soviet Union and the United States? Because
#1- the other party to the treaty doesn't exist anymore, and
#2- we didn't ignore our obligations, we followed the defined protocol to withdraw from the obsolete treaty

The point of these treaties and enforced resolutions was to slow Sadaam down enough to contain him, and they were working fine according to Blix's team.

Again, I refer you to Resolution 687, which plainly states that the goal of the resolutions was the "establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of [WMD]," and to "restore international peace and security." And Blix specifically said that Iraq was not in compliance with his obligations.

Israel was in violation of several UN resolutions and the US took no action against *them*

I specifically said Chapter 7 UN Securit

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

...
10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above

...
12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above;

...
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;

Just the US has ignored its own weapons treaty obligations in the past.

And just what weapons treaties has the US ignored? Are you referring to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the Soviet Union and the United States? Because
#1- the other party to the treaty doesn't exist anymore, and
#2- we didn't ignore our obligations, we followed the defined protocol to withdraw from the obsolete treaty

The point of these treaties and enforced resolutions was to slow Sadaam down enough to contain him, and they were working fine according to Blix's team.

Again, I refer you to Resolution 687, which plainly states that the goal of the resolutions was the "establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of [WMD]," and to "restore international peace and security." And Blix specifically said that Iraq was not in compliance with his obligations.

Israel was in violation of several UN resolutions and the US took no action against *them*

I specifically said Chapter 7 UN Securit

Regarding UN reports, this is disingenuous of you. The final reports from the UN inspection teams let by Hans Blix etc stated plainly that sanctions were working and there was no evidence of WMDs. Let me spell this out for you since you seem to find it hard to comprehend. The expert sent to determine whether there were any weapons on his final visit said that he had concluded there were none.

What the hell are you talking about? What final report? UNMOVIC hasn't issued a "final" report yet. They are supposed to release their first draft of a compendium if Iraq's proscribed weapons and programs next month (March 2005).

And UNMOVIC has not said that there is "no evidence" of WMDs. I think you are confusing some things here. They have said that there is no evidence that there were large WMD stockpiles left, but they can't rule out the possibility of smaller WMD caches spread across Iraq (including over 500 155mm artillery shells filled with high grade mustard gas that Saddam's Special Republican Guard is believed to have had as late as March 2003). This is all covered in their latest quarterly report.

And the stockpiles are only part of the story. We found dozens of proscribed WMD programs and activities in Iraq that the UN did not know about. All of these were direct violations of Iraq's cease-fire obligations that the Security Council had given explicit authorization to enforce using military action.

UNMOVIC addressed the ISG findings in their last quarterly report (November, 2004). In that report, they acknowledge that the ISG did in fact find proscribed weapons, programs, and procurement activities that the UN did not know about. Iraq was clearly in violation of Resolution 1441!

Your "charge sheet" bullet point list is not in dispute. He was an asshole dictator, just like numerous other asshole dictators around the world, many of them still supported by the US just like Saddam used to be.

Numerous others? Like who? Who else was in violation of 17 Chapter 7 Security Council Resolutions? Who else was under international orders to disarm? Who else had shown a willingness to use chemical weapons in the past, launched unprovoked missile attacks against neighboring countries, tried to illegally expand their borders, and had direct ties to numerous terrorist organizations? Sure- there are other bad people in this world, but you cannot seriously claim that Iraq did not pose a unique threat.

But you're suggesting that its reasonable and acceptable to go around invading sovereign nations on the off chance that they might possibly assist terrorists later on.

There was a lot more than just an "off chance" that Iraq would resort to terrorism- they already had multiple times! We foiled numerous terror plots against us or other western countries throughout the 1990s. And intelligence from around the world suggested that Iraq was still trying. Just how many "bloody noses" do you expect us to accept as a price of freedom?

Boy, you are uninformed.

12/07/02 - Iraq gives 12000 pages of documentation to UN. 12/13/02 - The US (NOT U.N.) claim "missing answers"

You seem to have forgotten about 1/27/03 - Hans Blix said: "On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of resolution 1441 (2002) and within the time stipulated by the Security Council... Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues."

Other countries fail to meet U.N. resolutions without being invaded

Yeah? Name one.

Wow, two things: 1. You admit he DIDN'T have a WMD program. 2. You say he wanted to build a WMD program, i assume you got that iformation via CNN.

If you ever bothered to read the ISG report regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities, you would know that 1. Iraq certainly did have WMD programs and 2. He retained equipment and intellectual capital that was in violation of the UN requirements and 3. He had clear intentions of mass producing WMD as soon as the UN sanctions were removed.

But my guess is that you never even bothered to read the report.

I call bullshit. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. And THAT is well known and documented.

Don't be ignorant. There are clear and documented ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda that date back to the early 1990's. The Clinton Administration connected Al Qaeda and Iraq when they bombed the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, and the Clinton State Department issued a clear indictment that Al Qaeda "reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Zarqawi has been in Iraq since early 2002, and has a clear history with Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. The Iraqi terrorist group Ansar Al-Islam also had a relationship with Al Qaeda.

More importantly, Iraq was on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism for the better part of 2 decades.

Arguing that Iraq was not involved with terrorists only makes you look stupid and ignorant, but I think most people already knew that about you after reading some of your other idiotic posts.

Three hurricane paths intersect in single season. Never happened before.

South Atlantic's first hurricane? Probably never happened before.

1977 U.N. treaty banning military created earthquakes and tsunamis. Isn't that interesting.

However, I know from experience that disagreeing with the premises of a Slashdot story means this comment will remain at 1 or below. Yeah, reframing the argument is probably off topic on the post-911/idiotized Slashdot.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your claims?

Sure.

It would be helpful, if you would be more specific about what you're referencing.

But I understand. Name calling is a lot more fun than real debate.

If that is your view, I hope your chains are not bound too tightly... Maybe you should read Hobbes' Leviathan. In it Hobbs argues that no rational person would ever choose the sort of freedom you seem to be in favour of.

When people voluntarily choose to work together for the common good, it can hardly be considered slavery.

It's really quite simple. Public healthcare is demonstrably cheaper than a private system. Every layer of the private system requires profit and those costs are passed on to the consumer. There is always more demand than there is supply, and the demand curve is quite inelastic. So, there is little or no incentive for the providers to compete based on price.

As a percentage of GDP, the US spends more on healthcare than Canada does. But the quality of that healthcare appears to be lower. The infant mortality rate in the US is much higher than it is in Canada for example.

Yes, I have heard that the HMOs are pretty useless. Even so, there are more people in the US with no healthcare insurance than the entire population of Canada. I'm thinking we have found a better way, and it costs us less as an added bonus.

Care to identify any terrorists who entered the US via Canada?

Oh yes. So tight that no illegal immigrants from Mexico ever reach the US...

Reference? More likely a troll...

It all depends on what the goals of the terrorists are. If they want to bring chaos and anarchy to the entire world, you are right. But if their vendetta is focused against the US, perhaps not.

If they think of us at all, it would only be a means to that end.

That bastion of socialism the United Nations published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights some time ago. Our constitution and laws are interpreted according to our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's pretty straightforward to decide when an issue concerns human rights, since those rights have been clearly documented.

what really matters - access to technology gives developing countries a chance to strengthen their economies and improve quality of life. This program won't solve the world's problems, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

Taken from http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/ecodev.htm

"The ability of countries to participate in, benefit from and contribute to the rapid advances in science and technology can significantly influence their development. Hence, international cooperation efforts should be intensified and strengthened towards the developing countries' endogenous capacity-building in science and technology, including their capacity to utilize scientific and technological developments from abroad and to adapt them to suit local conditions. There is a need to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate, access to and transfer of environmentally sound technologies and the corresponding know-how, in particular to the developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed, taking into account the need to protect intellectual property rights as well as the special needs of developing countries.

Promotion of science and technology for development calls for a clear definition of the respective roles in this area of the private sector, Governments and international organizations. The private sector plays a role in the productive application of science and technology and most commercially relevant technology is controlled by the private sector. Governments play a role in ensuring that there is a propitious environment for the development, access to, transfer, adaptation and application of environmentally sound technologies, and in providing appropriate regulatory frameworks and incentives for the development of scientific and technological capabilities. Promotion of science and technology for development also requires a labour force that has the professional and technical training necessary to utilize newly introduced technologies.

Developing countries should further advance their collective efforts in promoting technology research, training, development and dissemination, as well as facilitating the access and exchange through information and technology centres. This development calls for the continued and enhanced support from the international community through technical assistance and financing. The international community should also continue to promote the development of effective and mutually beneficial technological cooperation between countries with economies in transition and all other countries, including in the area of new and emerging technologies".

You have drastically misunderstood his ideas. His idea of freedom is not that people in his culture should be free - it is ALL people have the RIGHT to be free. He might be wrong, but that is his idea. He believes that the Chinese people that disagree are wrong. He has the right to believe they are wrong.

i don't think i've misunderstood him. He (She? Can i assume that 'Crow T. Trollbot' is male?) has the right to hold whatever beliefs he wants, but he suggested that they're universally applicable. I have no problems with people stating their beliefs, but arrogance starts when you suggest that other people's beliefs are wrong.

You are proudly, arrogantly proclaiming your belief that he is wrong, freedom is not an actual, universal truth, it is just a cultural thing.

No, i'm not. i didn't say anything about my views on 'freedom', (once again, freedom to do what?) i just pointed out that beyond things that we do hold as universal human rights, he shouldn't try to apply his personal moral standards to china when the people there clearly have different beliefs.

Of course in practice it is not enforced, but China as a member state of the United Nations is bound by this to respect freedom of expression. This is not some Western viewpoint imposed on others.

Is that really such a good idea? The world population in 40 years will be around 8.7 billion. Shouldn't we let the sick ones die out?

The first known government funded weather experiment was in 1890. And by now much of the weather may be under the control of man. What is the evidence of weather control? I don't claim any of this as evidence, but I do find it interesting:

Three hurricanes in 2004 intersect in a short period of time. This has never happened before. And over the town of Homeland?

image 1
image 2

How would your steer a hurricane? Hurricanes are steered by high/low pressures and wind currents. By heating or cooling large enough sections of the troposphere you might control updrafts/downdrafts and create the steering high/low pressures. Technologies to heat up the atmosphere: HAARP perhaps?

South Atlantic (south of the equator) in 2004 seems to experience its first (as far as they know) hurricane.

The 2004 tsunami? The U.N. had a convention in 1977 discouraging military induced earthquakes and tsunamis.

It's easy to be spun off into the dialectics of whether global warming is true or false, or whether it's global warming or global cooling. But why not man made global weather control? You create a weather crisis that allows you to bring in weather control that people will be more inclinded to accept. Purpose: a control mechanism for a one world government.

When I traveled to Communist China, I expected to have to write down all the addresses. If I were to have traveled to the USSR last century, I would have expected physical or bureaucratic minders to be watching my location and contacts.

But when traveling in free, democratic countries, signers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I expect to tell the truth about my length of stay, and that the border-guards will want to protect 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.

When I've been on trips to free countries I've generally only made reservations only if it looks like the hotels could be all booked up (Kyoto in autumns leaf season, say). I wouldn't be able to give specific addresses, only a general itinerary.

From the ever-useful and prescient Canadian Privacy Commissioner's Report, writing about Canada, but its especially applicable to the US (as it warns Canadians not to lose rights the US has recently given up):

"The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free.

That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society like Canada. But that is where we are inexorably headed, if the Government's current initiatives are allowed to proceed..."

[Initiative to collect travel data in and outside of the country]

"All this personal information - more than 30 data elements including every destination to which we travel, who we travel with, how we pay for the tickets (sometimes including credit card numbers), what contact numbers we provide, even any dietary preferences or health-related requirements we communicate to the airline - will be available for an almost limitless range of governmental purposes under the broad information-sharing provisions of the Customs Act...

This is unprecedented. The Government of Canada has absolutely no business creating a massive database of personal information about all law-abiding Canadians that is collected without our consent from third parties, not to provide us with any service but simply to have it available to use against us if it ever becomes expedient to do so. Compiling dossiers on the private activities of all law-abiding citizens is the sort of thing the Stasi secret police used to do in the former East Germany. It has no place in a free and democratic society."

Its pointless to continue this when you can read exactly what UNMOVIC was asking for. If they couldn't provide direct evidence, UNMOVIC was asking for any documents or a list of personnel that they could interview and permission to actually interview them. It is not trivial to dispose of chemical and biological weapons, and it is laughable that Iraq would not be able to provide any info to support their claims. Iraq never cooperated with this.

For example, Iraq claimed that they unilaterally took 1.5 tonnes of Vx into the desert and dumped it onto some concrete to destroy it (Appendix II, paragraph 16). Later, when inspectors were finally told about this, they went to the site, and they were able detect some traces of Vx. But when they asked if they could interview anybody that was there or loaded the trucks or ANYTHING to verify that it was about 1.5 tonnes, Iraq refused to cooperate. So we know that some Vx was destroyed there, but we have no idea how much. It is not unreasonable to assume that Saddam was lying about the quantity, especially considering his history.

Asking them to let you talk to people that participated in this activity is not the same as saying "Prove you don't have Vx".

Its pointless to continue this when you can read exactly what UNMOVIC was asking for. If they couldn't provide direct evidence, UNMOVIC was asking for any documents or a list of personnel that they could interview and permission to actually interview them. It is not trivial to dispose of chemical and biological weapons, and it is laughable that Iraq would not be able to provide any info to support their claims. Iraq never cooperated with this.

For example, Iraq claimed that they unilaterally took 1.5 tonnes of Vx into the desert and dumped it onto some concrete to destroy it (Appendix II, paragraph 16). Later, when inspectors were finally told about this, they went to the site, and they were able detect some traces of Vx. But when they asked if they could interview anybody that was there or loaded the trucks or ANYTHING to verify that it was about 1.5 tonnes, Iraq refused to cooperate. So we know that some Vx was destroyed there, but we have no idea how much. It is not unreasonable to assume that Saddam was lying about the quantity, especially considering his history.

Asking them to let you talk to people that participated in this activity is not the same as saying "Prove you don't have Vx".