Slashdot Mirror

Even worse is the frickin United Nations. They use Real for both their live webcasts and radio streams (they have one token mp3 stream, but everything else is .ram)

To be a POW you have to have been captured wearing a recognisable uniform, and be part of an established fighting force of a government. I suspect that many of the people captured met neither condition.

In which case they should be charged with something, either spying (unlikely if they were in their own country) or something else. They should then have the opportunity to defend themselves in open court with the ability to avail themselves of all the rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the US has signed up to. If US soldiers in Britain arrested me, I would not be wearing a recognisable uniform because I am not part of the military or any recognisable fighting force of government. That does not give them the right to forcibly remove me from my home country and lock me up without ever even charging me with anything! The actions of Bush and his cohorts in the Whitehouse are absolutely disgusting.

They don;t exactly do a lot to minimise civilian deaths while they do it though. /a> 1,500 left homeless and two children killed, or how about this?,or this?

The French
------------
Well, the fact that the guy is french is no coincidence. And despite certain questions surrounding the Heritage foundation (click on their about to see what I mean) they do a solid job of documentation and provide a good overview. Again when superconservatives and ultraliberals agree, the things agreed upon do aquire something of an aura of authenticity on that basis alone.

The UN's own faq, of sorts, to answer these criticisms is less than forthcoming, occasionally laughable I suspect because of the language barrier. Basically, they demand the reader of the faq accept the judgements of the council to be unbiased, untainted, reasonable, and in general unimpeachable. Which is just laughable at it's face, the UN being almost a tragic parody of the ideal it represents. It's a microcosim of the most petty bickering, and the most base human failings ever displayed, by any measure, I'm quite sure. Not the authority I would be appealing to. But what the heck.

And then there are the French, and their own misgivings.

Bush
------------
Countries, and then only the rich ones, and then only exceedingly rarely base their decisions on ethical considerations. (I wouldn't even put Kosovo/Bosnia in that box considering the results of the other times serbs got all militant about their "national identity.") I could say Somalia was one of those times though.

The French are complete space cadets, it's hard to attribute any motivation to their baffeling actions. The germans on the other hand, they talk a lot, but much like any other amoral hussler, if you've got the cash they'll drop ship the goods. They care more about a couple of hundred million dollars of weapons parts, or illegal machine tools, or should I say the bribes and personal favors that got them through, than the stability of a region that directly infuences the stability of the world's economy. While I'm sure the French are just as corrupt, I'm also able to believe that the frenchman responsible was stuck in that days farmer's strike, unable to performe his incomprehensible bureaucratic function or pick up his bribe to not perform it.

At least with Putin, I can appreciate the tightrope he has to walk, and bravo. (Next year I suppose they'll throw flamming plates for him to juggle too.) But he's also not so mealymouthed. He lies, as do all politicians, but he doesn't make the same pretense about who he really is. His situation is so obscenely difficult, he doesn't really deserve comparison. And Americans (the massed citizenry) would never mention Chechenya, because where the rubber meets the road, they're getting off easy by our standards. I would go so far as to say, many people (genuinly nice people, people who would help you move even if you didn't have beer and pizza) would wonder how it was Richard Reed (the british shoe bomber) wasn't beaten to death before the plane landed, or why those American taliban supporters won't be hung for treason. (Might not be technically treason, but it's close enough.)

If Gerard Schroder or Jacques Chirac ever came clean with their people, after vomiting all over themselves and redefining apathy for a generation, they probably wouldn't know what to do. Not that I think Bush would fare any better obviously. But I don't think it would be a blow to our national identity in the way I get the feeling it would be with french and germans. At least from the US, we ended up making the world a better place to be an Iraqi, even if the process was completely f-d. (Every testimonial I've seen from someone who didn't appear to have an axe to grind seems to agree on that, even from the odd brit.) Where for the

Wrong on number one. Aggressors NEVER give back land taken

Please, get you facts straight since June of 1967 Israel has OCCUPIED the original Borders of the Palestine state.

Today not only does Israel OCCUPY Palestinian land, but encourages settlement of jewish Israeli's on these lands

While in Occupation of this so called democratic country, Palestinians suffer without having any political say in the Israeli government, suffer from lack of clean water, livable conditions in the Gaza Strip are horrendous, despite the support of many human rights organizations their efforts however, have been continuously blocked by the State of Israel.

Historically speaking, it is Israel's land and there is no such thing as a Palestinian. there is also, BTW no such thing as a Jordanian either, according to your line of reasoning. Jordan was made by the U.N. "Palestinians" are Jordanians, ,and Jordan hated them and still does. Even tried to kill them.

Wow!?!? You really are confused aren't you? Those little Israeli tourism pamphlets you've been reading aren't very historically accurate. Saying that Palestinians don't exist is like saying Native Americans don't exist either. True, as with Native Americans in the pre-Colonial days, The Palestinians did not have a "Nationalized" Identity in the European since. Present day arab Nationalism was a European concept introduced in the Middle east from colonialism which of course is no different than present day Israeli colonialism.

However a majority of the Inhabitants (who call themselves Palestinian) of this land converted to Islam 1400 years ago, Thereby adopting a "Muslim" Identity and implementing Arabic culture and language. This however does not justify taking someone's home and prompting a forceful relocation of 8 million Palestinian Refugees in other Arabic nations, when in fact they have lived on the land what is now known as Israel for Thousands of years, and have always had a localized "Palestinian" Culture.

They are merciful enough to only destroy the homes of terrorists and their activities. Of course, the Israeli-hating-terrorist murtderous liars also destroy... blah, blah, blahblah blahblah, blah.

Ahem, Spoken like a true sincere human being.

all those homes that are bulldozed are all terrorist? Hmm the BBC and most internationally focused news agencies reports differently, just one example

Israelis attack military targets and go out of the way (which they should not) to avoid civilian targets. Your friends the lying murderers nearly always target the innocents.

Dead wrong. Everyday Israel just can't avoid civilian targets

Thus the continuous occupation, oppression, and destruction of Palestinian children and THEIR land and now you have Israeli citizens that wonder why their homes and way of life isn't safe anymore? hmmmmm.

Why does Israel even put up with these animals?
They're u go bro...you Represent your israeli folk well why your safe and sound in your american home, what's the matter dude? why don't you go to Israel and live there? Scared?

However, more and more average working americans themselves are becoming aware that Israel has become a liability to our country, with 3 billion (soon to go up) a year "official" Tax support for the Israeli occupation, in the face human rights, 30 UN sanctions, growing worldwide (not just middle east) anti-american sentiment because of it's relations with Israel. Israel does nothing for the United States, Economically, Politically, and diplomatically except lobby for more money. I say stop the support and use that money on more important things like our children's future education and healthcare.

In the end who

Wrong on number one. Aggressors NEVER give back land taken

Please, get you facts straight since June of 1967 Israel has OCCUPIED the original Borders of the Palestine state.

Today not only does Israel OCCUPY Palestinian land, but encourages settlement of jewish Israeli's on these lands

While in Occupation of this so called democratic country, Palestinians suffer without having any political say in the Israeli government, suffer from lack of clean water, livable conditions in the Gaza Strip are horrendous, despite the support of many human rights organizations their efforts however, have been continuously blocked by the State of Israel.

Historically speaking, it is Israel's land and there is no such thing as a Palestinian. there is also, BTW no such thing as a Jordanian either, according to your line of reasoning. Jordan was made by the U.N. "Palestinians" are Jordanians, ,and Jordan hated them and still does. Even tried to kill them.

Wow!?!? You really are confused aren't you? Those little Israeli tourism pamphlets you've been reading aren't very historically accurate. Saying that Palestinians don't exist is like saying Native Americans don't exist either. True, as with Native Americans in the pre-Colonial days, The Palestinians did not have a "Nationalized" Identity in the European since. Present day arab Nationalism was a European concept introduced in the Middle east from colonialism which of course is no different than present day Israeli colonialism.

However a majority of the Inhabitants (who call themselves Palestinian) of this land converted to Islam 1400 years ago, Thereby adopting a "Muslim" Identity and implementing Arabic culture and language. This however does not justify taking someone's home and prompting a forceful relocation of 8 million Palestinian Refugees in other Arabic nations, when in fact they have lived on the land what is now known as Israel for Thousands of years, and have always had a localized "Palestinian" Culture.

They are merciful enough to only destroy the homes of terrorists and their activities. Of course, the Israeli-hating-terrorist murtderous liars also destroy... blah, blah, blahblah blahblah, blah.

Ahem, Spoken like a true sincere human being.

all those homes that are bulldozed are all terrorist? Hmm the BBC and most internationally focused news agencies reports differently, just one example

Israelis attack military targets and go out of the way (which they should not) to avoid civilian targets. Your friends the lying murderers nearly always target the innocents.

Dead wrong. Everyday Israel just can't avoid civilian targets

Thus the continuous occupation, oppression, and destruction of Palestinian children and THEIR land and now you have Israeli citizens that wonder why their homes and way of life isn't safe anymore? hmmmmm.

Why does Israel even put up with these animals?
They're u go bro...you Represent your israeli folk well why your safe and sound in your american home, what's the matter dude? why don't you go to Israel and live there? Scared?

However, more and more average working americans themselves are becoming aware that Israel has become a liability to our country, with 3 billion (soon to go up) a year "official" Tax support for the Israeli occupation, in the face human rights, 30 UN sanctions, growing worldwide (not just middle east) anti-american sentiment because of it's relations with Israel. Israel does nothing for the United States, Economically, Politically, and diplomatically except lobby for more money. I say stop the support and use that money on more important things like our children's future education and healthcare.

In the end who

I am sorry to go so off-topic.

#11: U.S. Implicated in Taliban Massacre

Yes, we did kill a lot of them. Fortunately, there was no conspiracy there. WAIT! Because we funded the enemy of our soviet enemy when they were our enemy, that must mean the Taliban was, is and will always be our freind. Get married so you can find out about how friendships change over the years.

#11: U.S. Implicated in Taliban Massacre

Yes, we did kill a lot of them. Fortunately, there was no conspiracy there. WAIT! Because we funded the enemy of our soviet enemy when they were our enemy, that must mean the Taliban was, is and will always be our freind. Get married so you can find out about how friendships change over the years.

According to this United Nations report, 66 million people are aged 80 or older. Of that population, 59 million are octogenarians, 7 million are nonagenarians, and 135,000 are centenarians.

As you can see, it's a rather steep curve. While Teller's lifespan of 95 years is respectable, it isn't terribly remarkable,and pales in importance next to his scientific career.

(BTW,if the Japanese figures quoted in the parent posts were correct, the Japanese comprise 2 percent of the world's population, but Japanese centenarians make up 15 percent of the world's population aged over 100 years.)

Check out this website and learn that not even a tiny fraction of the military expenses could solve a shitload of humanitarian problems.

There are a few good reasons to have an army, weapons, police, civilian order and whatnot.

But there's something fundamentally wrong with the US, Chinese and European weapons industry among others, and the growing dependance of scientists for military funding.

While some countries haven't even begun to self-govern themselves we're spending more on weapons than on any other problem we're faced with today.

Nomatter what your politics are and where you live, doesn't that feel a bit wrong?

The really cute thing is, stating such an opinion more likely than not turns you into a "naive".

by govt of taiwan I think he means the nationalist party as they had (more) control over china than the communist party before the war. But china always been in the UN as they helped form it.

unitednations.com
The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and by a majority of other signatories. United Nations Day is celebrated on 24 October each year.

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. hahhahahaha this is so funny. You're so right
Article 2: some bullshit about not discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color, religion ROTFLMAO
Article 3:Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Freakin' idealists with their human rights
Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude such toilet paper this UN declaration of human rights is.
Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment how laughably broad! Can you believe this crock of shit
Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law This one is a real tickler. How unreasonable.

and it goes on like this for another 24 or so articles.

Those founding pinkos of America also had some unrealistic notions about rights and lefty things like that. I'd quote them too, but I'm running out of irony.

Face it. The liberal values of one generation are opposed to death by conservatives of their time, only to be held up as dogma by conservatives of the next generation. Human progress is a constant move toward liberalism, impeded and shat upon by simple-minded fools who are too comfortable with the status-quo. Your idealogical descendants will wear brown shirts and hold vigils when some crazy redneck judge is prevented from having a monument to the UN declaration of human rights placed in a courtroom.

Ethanol here I come...

Ancient history doesn't matter as to determining whose land that is. Palestine was to become a country as a result of the Ottoman Empire dissolving (after losing WWI) and the British tried to give it part of it over to the would be Palistinians. The Israeli's declared independance and illegally took it over. This is from the UN's history of the Palestine problem. There are many sources that show how Palestine was supposed to be a larger state than just the West Bank and Gaza strip. Why is this even an arguement?

These aren't incredible times. This has been going on since the beginning of the last century.

We should ask what our roll should be, but it's important to know what our role has been.

The people that they do go to say that you're probably wrong.

Take a look at their web page and judge for yourself.

Read the article. One of the cartel guys is so scared by this tech that he was white-faced and shaking by the end of his meeting with Clarke. Another diamond guy told Linares that his father's research was an excellent way to get a bullet in the head.

DeBeers is only where they are because they've had a lock on the supply, and imitations up to this point have been less than convincing. Now we have the real thing, man-made. Especially the vapor process. In fact, the vapor process produces even more perfect diamonds than Mother Nature. DeBeers *should* be scared, since the tech is now in North America and they can't do a damn thing to stop it. In fact, the whole conflict diamond problem is undoubtedly going to be a hindrance to DeBeers trying to badmouth these things. Just think of the upcoming PR:

General Clarke: "These are made by the same processes, and are real carbon diamonds. The structure is the same, it is real. It just took us a lot less time to make"
DeBeers: "But *our* diamonds come from our mines in Africa. Surely they're worth more because of that"
General Clarke: "How many children were killed because of those African diamonds?"
DeBeers: "...but, but, we're sure everyone follows the Kimberly accords..."
General Clarke: "Of course. Because bloody military juntas are so concerned with outside trade agreements, right?"

"What I would call the tyrany of the majority."

yes, the tyranny of the majority is a well established argument against democracy. However your argument applies equally to a Republic and a true Democracy. As in a democratic Republic the will of the majority is still expressed through representatives. So, the wolves have two representatives in Congress and the sheep one. Or in the case of redistricting, the wolves have 3 representatives and the sheep none. So, if they are still voting on who is for dinner, how is the situation different? The wolves will likely vote for their wolf constituents and let dinner ensue. A representative form of government does nothing to counter the tyranny of the majority. It is only by a constitution which can be changed only by super-majority that limits the authority of the government with respect to individual rights which can counter the tyranny of the majority. But the point is that such a constitution can apply to a true democracy as well as a republic.

"As you say, the U.S. and other constitutional democracies have checks and balances to counter-act such abuses from the majority."

I still disagree with the watering down of the word democracy. Democratic Republic is how I would describe the form of government in the US. The Federal System is Democratic in that people vote for something, but it is not a Democracy. Constitutiuon as a description of government is irrelevent, since nearly all forms of government have some type of constitution, some good some very bad.

Also, a declaration of rights or mere acknowledgement of rights is not a constitution, and if you read it carefully the US constitution does not declare rights either. It acknowledges them and limits the United States government from infringing upon them. Just compare the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" found here to the US Constitution
To someone unconcerned with language they may appear like they would have similar effect, but any computer programmer that can read english should be able to tell you that one of these documents is meant to be put to work and the other is meant to be looked at.

Maybe the United States should have a policy that the minute a Jewish person leaves the United States for any reason -- as long as it's willingly -- they're not allowed back in. I mean, hey, the minute a person leaves their country they give up all right to return to it so their country can use whatever criteria it wants (including race) to decide who should have the privilege of returning.

Those that fought against Israel, yes, were forced to "flee."

Maybe the United States should have expelled the confederate army to refugee camps in Mexico after they lost the US civil war. I mean, hey, if you're on the losing side you have no rights at all.

Of course, what would be really fair would be to expel anyone that fought on either side.

Naturally, it's late and I'm being a bit flamaceous but a serious treatment of right of return (in a general sense) is way too complicated for Slashdot.

According to a summary by the United Nations:

... One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war it expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. 750,000 Palestinians, over half the indigenous population, fled or were expelled. In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control. The war brought a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at more than half a million.

They have Israeli passports, Israeli citizenship,...

But they don't have "Jewish Nationality" (they're not considered to be racially Jewish) which means that they are excluded from a number of civil benefits including ownership of 90% of the land in Israel.

I know I said it like five times but here we go again. You used depeleted uranium armament. That's a war crime. You deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure. That's a war crime.

Jeez! You were defending Clinton just a week ago for doing that very same thing. Clinton administration was bombing Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War under the pretext of the no-fly zone (which btw, has no basis in international law). Oh but he "inherited" the policy, so it's not a war crime for him.

the UN resolution passed because we twisted the arms of many countries. Check your facts.

Yeah, just like the US prevented the UN from acting in Indonesia until the massacres in East Timor were in full swing for some time.
And just like the US prevented prevented water and sanitation equipment from being repaired under the sanctions regime after specifically targetting that infrastructure in the first Gulf War.
But I suppose the UN isn't a "reliable source" is it?
What a freaking tard...

Another point is that anonymity is one of /. greatest strengths. Some of the most insightful and interesting posts have been from "insiders" posting anonymously.

NY Times... user tracking is less sophisticated than slashcode's vital anti troll features.

Care to back this statement up?

...continual complaints on slashdot from people who are obsessed with privacy on the net unless karma is involved

You seem to be quite willing to give up those rights. And that's OK. But there are people here that feel that privacy is a rather important right. That should be respected as well. Enough people actually thought that privacy was a right of such importance that it is enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see Article 12).

Also your original post said something about an invation which is way out of line.

The US invaded and bombed Yugoslavia.

Once again you are making the claim that US increased arms sales so that turkey could kill more kurds when that's not the case at all. Arms sales to turkey were increased because an embargo previously placed was lifted.

So the embargo only limited and did not prevent arms sales? Because the US was giving away and selling hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment for decades to both Indonesia and Turkey (in the case of Indonesia, since at least the 60's).
So you are saying that these embargoes were lifted just as the violence against the Kurds and the East Timorese was reaching its climax? Were these sanctions enforced by the Security Council? Because I saw no resolutions regarding Turkey or Indonesia while the violence was in full swing. There was resolution 1319 in September 2000 condemning the violence in Timor, but this was well after much violence had already occured (which I said was because the US was actively trying to prevent the UN from doing anything about it).
But in Turkey, are you saying that all the 30,000 murdered kurds and over 2 million displaced were part of the PKK?

The oil for food program was initiated by clinton.

Yeah, and in the description of the oil for food program you'll see that all money was controlled by the UN sanctions committee (on which US and Britain had controlling sway). And as you'll see in the charts describing the transfers to the people of Iraq, water and sanitation repair was consistently blocked. These were infrastructure targets specifically attacked during Desert Storm, and they were specifically prevented from being repaired, and this would be a major contributing factor to the 5000 children per month death rate. The US and Britain prevented Iraq from repairing this equipment, in effect conducting biological warfare on the people of Iraq.

but that's better than having no source at all.

No it's not.

Right, so making something up is better than reading it somewhere. Usually reading about an incident or event in several varied sources provides more evidence that that event actually occured. I suppose your thinking is the same logic used by the Bush/Blair administrations in justifying the second invasion of Iraq.

People are dying all over the world. People die all over the world under all presidents. You seem to think that it's all Bill Clinton's fault which shows how stupid you are. People died all over the world before Bill Clinton was born, before he was the president, and after presidency. You are critizing Bill Clinton because he failed to stop death and tyranny. Well guess what nobody can. Nobody has, nobody will.

You're a pretty pessimistic person. I never said it was all Clinton's fault, but I certainly think he can share in the blame. This is evident in that Clinton was able to stem violence in Indonesia. He simply asked the generals in the US client state to cut it out when conditions were becoming unfavourable. The problem is he didn't not ask this sooner and prevent many deaths.
And there are plenty of examples where violence and tyranny was stopped. The massacre of the Jews, Roma, Homosexuals, and others, by the Nazis was stopped. Slavery in America was stopped. Violence in Timor was stopped (eventually). EU peace keepers are in the DRC right now trying to stop violence.
So unless you can provide some evidence or references to back up your claims and accusations, about history or myself, then I don't see why anyone should take what you're saying as anything more than baseless conjecture.

A right is something that you can have without taking away someone elses, that's one of the key qualities of it.

Sorry, but not everyone shares your libertarian definition. I should think that the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be considered the canonical reference on human rights. The very first line puts "inherent dignity" above "inalienable rights"; the only fundamental right is that of dignity, all other rights can be derived from that (eg: the Ontario Court of Appeal recently ruled that not allowing same-sex couples to marry is a violation of their dignity).

Paying taxes does not violate your dignity.

Article 3 states that "everyone has the right to...liberty", this allows us to deduce Articles 6 through 11 which lay out our rights within the justice system. Unfortunately, fair tribunals cost money. Would you suggest that having to pay for someone else's trial is a violation of your rights? Likewise, Article 21 requires your country to hold costly elections or facilitate democracy in some other way.

Article 3 also states that "everyone has the right to...security of person", which leads to Article 14, forcing your country to accept refugees, and Article 22, the "right to social security". Article 22, we are told, requires the State to use its economic resources to ensure the dignity and the "free development of...personality" for all people.

And the universal human rights which require goods and services just goes on and on. So I think it's safe to conclude that the rest of the world has a very different conception of "right" than you do.

After watching "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones", I am disgusted at the amount of shameful homosexuality present in the film. Not since the 50s have Godly Christian viewers been subjected to such hedonistic filth. Consider, for example, Anakin (effeminately nicknamed 'Annie'), the precursor to Darth Vader. Played by "wanna-be" pretty-boy actress Natalie Portman, Anakin lusts after the slutty Queen Naboo, engaging in filthy acts of oral copulation next to a fireplace (obviously symbolising the fires of Hell in which they will surely roast to death after their final judgement). But wait, fellow Christians, there is more! A grizzly-green munchkin by the name of Yodo engages in an inter-species affair with the burly jedi Mace Windu, so vile and contemptible it would sure make the residents of Sodom and Gomorah blush! If that is not enough to upset your pure and innocent mind, harken that a flooded world is visited in which giant, walking tampons amass a huge army, an obvious insult to the original giant tampon, Noah, and his army of Beasts.

I hope these revelations allow you to make a just and informed decision in choosing movies Our Lord won't send you to Hell for watching.

Rosebud...

And even if you are convicted of some sort of made up IP crime, you can always take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights, which pretty much always finds for the individual, because the EU Convention on Human Rights is a very broad and generous document.

If the EU Convention on Human Rights is anything like the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it includes something about copyright. Article 27 of the UDHR guarantees at least some semblance of copyright to adhering nations.

Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states bluntly: "Intellectual property shall be protected."

Europe lacks a First Amendment and the respect for limited government, private property and free enterprise that America still enjoys.

EU is build on the foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the national states in the EU have to make sure that their national laws don't conflict with the Human Rights, and EU citizens can take their case to the European Court of Human Rights if they feel that their Human Right is violated by an European country (for instance, free speech). This document is of course also the foundation of the UN and has its philosophical basis in the philosophers of the enlightenment (the most important of them being French philosophers) which lead to the French revolution and the American Constitution. Paragraph 19 of the Human Rights Charter states:

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.

So, it is very wrong to state that EU lacks a "First Amendment".

The other claims are equally absurd.

Europe lacks a First Amendment and the respect for limited government, private property and free enterprise that America still enjoys.

EU is build on the foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the national states in the EU have to make sure that their national laws don't conflict with the Human Rights, and EU citizens can take their case to the European Court of Human Rights if they feel that their Human Right is violated by an European country (for instance, free speech). This document is of course also the foundation of the UN and has its philosophical basis in the philosophers of the enlightenment (the most important of them being French philosophers) which lead to the French revolution and the American Constitution. Paragraph 19 of the Human Rights Charter states:

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.

So, it is very wrong to state that EU lacks a "First Amendment".

The other claims are equally absurd.

• "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."
• "The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

The point I am trying to make is not that Iraq had WMD. It's that everyone thought Iraq had WMD, not just Bush and Blair. The point of the inspections was not to find WMD. It was assumed (by everybody) that they had WMD. The inspections were to confirm disarmament.

And doesn't Singapore have a TLD?

WHAT mobile weapons labs? Links please.

Here you go.

You might critise the UN but 70 years ago there was no international agency to feed the starving and no notion of an international court (however flawed).

The League of Nations was around almost 80 years ago and they tried to appease Hitler instead of confronting him.

Syria, Libya and Cuba don't have seats on the security council.

Syria does.

I would argue that the UK/US action has put this back by decades, causing more long-term harm to world peace than they have solved.

I would argue that the Secretary Generals by standing so forcibly against colonialism instead of trying to promote economic and political stability have caused more long-term harm to world peace than they have solved. May Dag Hammerskjold burn in hell.

Secondly, if the original UN resolution was enough, why did the US/UK seek a second?

Actually, there were over 14 resolutions on Iraq, so you're asking about a 'second' resolution is ridiculous. The US was merely going to ask for a confirmation of what had already been stated.

They're called 'facts'. You can find them yourself. Start searching for truth instead of grandstanding for virtue. You'll be a wiser man for it.

WHAT mobile weapons labs? Links please.

Here you go.

You might critise the UN but 70 years ago there was no international agency to feed the starving and no notion of an international court (however flawed).

The League of Nations was around almost 80 years ago and they tried to appease Hitler instead of confronting him.

Syria, Libya and Cuba don't have seats on the security council.

Syria does.

I would argue that the UK/US action has put this back by decades, causing more long-term harm to world peace than they have solved.

I would argue that the Secretary Generals by standing so forcibly against colonialism instead of trying to promote economic and political stability have caused more long-term harm to world peace than they have solved. May Dag Hammerskjold burn in hell.

Secondly, if the original UN resolution was enough, why did the US/UK seek a second?

Actually, there were over 14 resolutions on Iraq, so you're asking about a 'second' resolution is ridiculous. The US was merely going to ask for a confirmation of what had already been stated.

They're called 'facts'. You can find them yourself. Start searching for truth instead of grandstanding for virtue. You'll be a wiser man for it.

One of the news articles on the HT front page prompted me to look at the UN page which is worth looking at for a good example of how not to build a page : the UN english page . All the text on the page is in the form of images - usually a sign that the designer has not a clue. (The source says it was done with Adobe GoLive.)

For a good page I'd suggest Arts and Letters Daily which presents a lot of information in a nicely usable format. I would prefer that their banner image be just a tad smaller though. The stuff at the foot is also a bit annoying (expecially the hitbox crap) and not well laid out - but I rarely get that far down.

And if I might indulge my own amusement for a bit I'd recommend my personal webpage as being almost completely unusable. Odd javascript. No navigation. Big (oddly unusable and quite awful) image of me. General overboard hackiness. Serious dependencies on browsers. Here Ya Go

Pay attention. The words were "SET UP" not just participate in, show up, or pay dues to but set up, as in create, form, bring into existence, start, build, make.

The U.S. was one of the initial signatories to the U.N. treaty. The U.N. was *created by* the United States. Not by the "poor countries" that you assert. The name "United Nations" was made up by FDR. The charter was based on negotiations held at Dumbarton Oaks in the U.S., including the U.S. government. U.S. ratification of the charter was a condition of the U.N. coming into being.

Here are some links referring to extra-territorial jurisdiction (or universal jurisdiction - the idea that some crimes are so terrible that every court has jurisdiction for the crime):

• Amnesty International statement on universal jurisdiction
• a UN resolution "Adopting the resolution by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to two against (Israel, United States) and two abstentions (Australia, Latvia), the Assembly reiterated its call for the repeal of unilateral extraterritorial laws that imposed coercive measures contrary to international law on corporations and nationals of other States."
• (html from google) Princeton PDF hosts an article titled "Multinational Pharmaceutical Corporations and U.S. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction". It has a nice description about some exceptions to absolute sovereignty, some of which are widely recognized, and some not.

The Charter of the United Nations, specifically Article 2, Clauses 3 and 4. It is against international law to for one country to attack another country unless it's acting in defense to prior action. Iraq never attacked the United States nor did it recently attack any of its allies. Just the suspicion of possible action in the future is not defense just like me hitting someone else to prevent him from hitting me isn't self-defense either.

According to The United Nations Convention on The Law of the Sea, Article 3, a nation can claim only up to 12 nautical miles as it's territorial waters.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I am certainly not a maritime lawyer. The above should not be interpreted as legal advice. If you intend to land any space capsules, please double check where it's likely to go before you launch.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, section 27.2: "Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."

Protecting what's yours is a basic human right.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

... it covers as you see property, as in houses, farms, cars, companies etc. NOT copyrights.

Of course Iraq needs proper legislation/laws on this subject, but if you think they (US administartion)are doing this to protect Iraqi copyright holders I think you SERIOUSLY need to rethink your opinion.

I thinks thinks [INSERT disclaimer that maybe the Reg. article aint correct] that this with other stories; for example USA protecting one Minstry in Bagdad; the Minestry of Oil, shows what the real motivation behind the Iraq-war was.
No, I'm not saying that the invasion came because of copyrights or oil alone, thats just a bonus. When someone invade acountry they get to decide the legislation/laws inside that country. But selecting, among others; Hillary Rosen to help doing this says a lot about the current administartion.

After the defeat/collapse of the Third Reich/Nazi-Germany it probably went over a year befor they though about copyrights. IMHO that probably was a good thing. Other needs are far more important than copyrights right now. People are dying inside Iraq and you are thinking on copyrights?
Shame on you.

You mean this? You need to learn what a General Assembly resolution is before you try and make that arguement. It's not valid. There's a difference between a GA resoltion and the NPT. At least take the time to LEARN how the UN works (or fails to work) before you post.

* Solve the underlying issues. Downside: You will need to make painful concessions.

Actually, if we just quit giving Israel $6B+/year to fund the military occupation of Palestine, the problem would go away. Where's the pain in that?

It's hard to understand why Arabs hate us.

* Solve the underlying issues. Downside: You will need to make painful concessions.

Actually, if we just quit giving Israel $6B+/year to fund the military occupation of Palestine, the problem would go away. Where's the pain in that?

It's hard to understand why Arabs hate us.

It's certainly true that people can get too carried away with high-tech needs when low-tech needs are unmet, and I agree about the importance of health issues. But it's also true that westerners make too many blanket assumptions about Africa. Look at Senegal specifically -- here's some good info: these stats. All those comments below about how they can't read over there are pretty uninformed. Literacy is over 50%.

Depending on how you define "global", potentially 1948: Read Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Though the UN declaration is pretty damned modest, it does include freedom of expression.

what?! where do you get this information from?! think oil?! you actually think the money made from oil goes to iraqi citizens and not to Saddam's weapons programs? if Iraqi people made so much money, then home come the UN had to set up a food for oil program?

Just to inform you: after the Gulf War, Iraq was not allowed to export oil (their government declined the offer to sell oil in limited quantity to meet the peoples' needs - you can blame Saddam for it), until in 1995 the oil for food program was established. According to the UN, 72% of the profits went to the humanitarian program. (food, medicine, etc).

The UN sanctions had no restrictions on Food, Water, Medicine, or Humanitarian Aid being imported into Iraq. The only reason the Iraqi people have not been getting this is because Saddam Hussein has not been giving it to them.

As far as civilian deaths in the first gulf war, as tragic as they were, they could have been completely avoided if Saddam would have complied with the UN resolutions to remove his forces from Kuwait.

And, lest we try the "but the US forced the UN to do it" argument, let's not forget that the UN told the US 'no' about this war. So if America has such enormous influence in the UN, then why didn't they get what they wanted? Obviously the UN is capable of making it's own decisions, so these sactions imposed on Iraq can't simply be blamed on the US...every country in the United Nations is also resposible.

The Iraqi resolution was part of a surrender, after Iraq lost a war. Also the Iraqi resolution is unilateral; it does not depend on any other country to work with Iraq to disarm.

On the other hand, Resolution 242 is a resolution that gives tasks for the entire region. Such as:

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force

Strange how you don't blame the PLO, whose charter until recently included words to the effect of "No Israel ever", for not acknowledging the sovereignty of Israel. Or any of the other countries surrounding Israel who even after the resolution still went to war with Israel.

I guess its not strange that you think Israel could have done all this by itself. Seems most of the delusional people who are anti-war think that all it takes for peace is for one side to stop fighting. Sadly, things don't work that way.

Yep.

VQ, I don't do "official denials". I cannot speak for what the policy of the U.S. government has been or is now. I speak as a concerned individual who believes that those who have perpetrated as much evil as the former leadership of Yugoslavia must be brought to account for their actions. No matter how you may feel about the outcomes of the conflicts in the Balkans, people there deserve that much at least. It does a great disservice to

You presuppose that Ignatieff agrees with you in your belief that maintaining the "territorial integrity" of Yugoslavia is a better end than the freedom of people. As a matter of fact, he doesn't agree with that assumption and supported the NATO intervention in Kosovo, to protect the Kosovar Albanians. His point on "proxy wars" is that they are fraught with risk because you are dealing with an outside party that you can't control. You can't call Kosovo a "proxy war", because it required the direct intervention of NATO through the dispatch of planes and troops. I can't say that I totally buy your notion of a U.S. conspiracy to control the Balkans because of a desire to secure an oil pipeline route, just as I don't think the only motivation for the war on Iraq is all about oil, either.

Now, were the Serbs wrong to call the KLA a terrorist group - when its mission was to kill the police and others who refused to support them?...
How come that is terrorism if it occurs in America, but "freedom fighting" when it occurs in Yugoslavia?

A favorite saying of some people is "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". However, the difference between the terrorists and the freedom fighters is that those who fight for their freedom are usually those who are fighting against the establishment who typically have more power than they do. If they have any integrity, they target their attacks against the arms of the state. Such was the case with the KLA, and they were fighting against the Serb government, which was all too willing to use its power to oppress the Kosovar Albanians. And as you point out, they were taking on arms of the state-- the police and the military-- in their battles. Sept. 11 and Oklahoma City were attacks on mostly civilian targets.

From the official indictment against Milosevic:

Approximately 800,000 Kosovo Albanian civilians were expelled from the province by their forced removal and subsequent looting and destruction of their homes, or by the shelling of villages. Surviving residents were sent to the borders of neighbouring countries. En route, many were killed, abused and had their possessions and identification papers stolen. Furthermore, specific massacres allegedly committed by Serb forces in places such as Dakovica/Gjakove, Suva Reka/Suhareke, Racak/Reçak, Bela Crkva/Bellacerke, Mala Krusa/Krushe e Vogel, Velika Krusa/Krushe e Mahde, Padaliste/Padalishte, Izbica/Izbice, Vucitrn/Vushtrri, Dubrava/Dubrave Prison complex, Meja/Meje and Kacani/Kacanik are listed in the indictment.

If you want to see the evidence entered against Milosevic over Kosovo, check it out: http://www.un.org/icty/glance/milosevic.htm

In the absence of evidence to exonerate Milosevic, I find it puzzling that anyone would defend the indefensible.

Please check your sources; UN Resolution 1441 states that the UN may use any necessary force to enforce compliance. Seeing as Iraq just flung a couple of Scuds (which they said they didn't have anymore IIRC) at the civilians in Kuwait City I would say the action is justified.

This whole thread is off-topic and has nothing to do with music "sharing".