Slashdot Mirror

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html

Time magazine "mainstream" enough for you?

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1095057.html

Or that, less mainstream though. Note both are from 2000 (before we attacked Iraq/Saddam).

http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-gadhafis-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar

Several links in there, some stale but a few at least worked.

http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/iranian-oil-bourse-opening.php
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Iran-Opens-Oil-Bourse-Harbinger-of-Trouble-for-New-York-and-London.html
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2314.cfm

I'm sure there's a lot more on the Iran oil bourse, it's in wikipedia as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

Why bother putting them in jail? "We bomb locations with precision, and we pay attention to locations where journalists are present."

Lol!

Unless you're a vegetarian, you really aren't in a position to criticise which bits of the animal we eat. Do you also dislike eating the arse end of a cow, or ground up offal (yeah - what do you think hot dogs are made from?).

Personally I'm rather fond of roast beef with Yorkshire pudding and horseradish sauce, but since it's not ground up and flavourless I can see how that might not appeal to American tastes.

As far as Comparative British and American food goes - here's a list of top restaurants Note how many more are British than American. Most of the American ones are in New York which is far from typical American in that you actually can get good food there.

This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries.

And the distinction is unnecessary if you just make sure the food is safe for long term use.

No. It won't matter. There are safe GM foods that have been feeding people for hundreds of years, but it only takes one to go wrong that will cause even the safe GM foods to banned. There was a case where an African country turned down free GM food and allowed their people to starve because some hippie-eco-group convinced the government that GM food was poison.

Also, note that the "pesticide" in question is Bt toxin. Bt stands for bacillus thuringiensis. Bt is used in mosquito dunks, pesticide sprays and several other applications. It is not just considered safe for humans, animals and beneficial insects, but is even considered to be ORGANIC! You can spray your crops all day and night with millions of gallons of Bt and not lose your organic certification.

In October 2001, polls indicated that about 88% of Americans and about 65% of Britons backed military action in Afghanistan.[148] On the other hand, a large-scale 37-nation poll of world opinion carried out by Gallup International in late September 2001, found that large majorities in most countries favoured a legal response, in the form of extradition and trial, over a military response to 9/11: Only in just 3 countries out of the 37 surveyed - the United States, Israel, and India - did majorities favour military action in Afghanistan. In 34 out of the 37 countries surveyed, the survey found many clear and sizeable majorities that did not favour military action: in the United Kingdom (75%), France (67%), Switzerland (87%), Czech Republic (64%), Lithuania (83%), Panama (80%), Mexico (94%), etc.

Believe it or not, USA != "the civilised world".

The war in Afghanistan was illegal and illegitimate. There are international agreements which the US is subject to and promptly ignored in 2001 when it was attacked, not by a country (though Bin Laden and most of the highjackers were Saudi's), but by a terrorist organisation. The "Bush Doctrine" is not a "Good Reason" for anything - it was just something dreamed up by that administration to establish military supremacy over one of "the greatest material prizes in world history".

I don't think your perspective is very libertarian - it's not just a trendy word, you know?

In October 2001, polls indicated that about 88% of Americans and about 65% of Britons backed military action in Afghanistan.[148] On the other hand, a large-scale 37-nation poll of world opinion carried out by Gallup International in late September 2001, found that large majorities in most countries favoured a legal response, in the form of extradition and trial, over a military response to 9/11: Only in just 3 countries out of the 37 surveyed - the United States, Israel, and India - did majorities favour military action in Afghanistan. In 34 out of the 37 countries surveyed, the survey found many clear and sizeable majorities that did not favour military action: in the United Kingdom (75%), France (67%), Switzerland (87%), Czech Republic (64%), Lithuania (83%), Panama (80%), Mexico (94%), etc.

Believe it or not, USA != "the civilised world".

The war in Afghanistan was illegal and illegitimate. There are international agreements which the US is subject to and promptly ignored in 2001 when it was attacked, not by a country (though Bin Laden and most of the highjackers were Saudi's), but by a terrorist organisation. The "Bush Doctrine" is not a "Good Reason" for anything - it was just something dreamed up by that administration to establish military supremacy over one of "the greatest material prizes in world history".

I don't think your perspective is very libertarian - it's not just a trendy word, you know?

In October 2001, polls indicated that about 88% of Americans and about 65% of Britons backed military action in Afghanistan.[148] On the other hand, a large-scale 37-nation poll of world opinion carried out by Gallup International in late September 2001, found that large majorities in most countries favoured a legal response, in the form of extradition and trial, over a military response to 9/11: Only in just 3 countries out of the 37 surveyed - the United States, Israel, and India - did majorities favour military action in Afghanistan. In 34 out of the 37 countries surveyed, the survey found many clear and sizeable majorities that did not favour military action: in the United Kingdom (75%), France (67%), Switzerland (87%), Czech Republic (64%), Lithuania (83%), Panama (80%), Mexico (94%), etc.

Believe it or not, USA != "the civilised world".

The war in Afghanistan was illegal and illegitimate. There are international agreements which the US is subject to and promptly ignored in 2001 when it was attacked, not by a country (though Bin Laden and most of the highjackers were Saudi's), but by a terrorist organisation. The "Bush Doctrine" is not a "Good Reason" for anything - it was just something dreamed up by that administration to establish military supremacy over one of "the greatest material prizes in world history".

I don't think your perspective is very libertarian - it's not just a trendy word, you know?

I studied the French language in high school, and have visited several times. France is a delightful country filled with warm and friendly people, and everyone I know likes it (the "freedom fries" silliness notwithstanding).

Perhaps Americans struggle to understand French politics a bit, and us older folk still bristle a bit at having to fly all the way around France for that Libyan thing. But the Statue of Liberty reminds us of our centuries of friendship, as Jean-Marie Colombani reminded us that when push comes to shove, we are all Frenchmen.

Funny because the last I heard, Japanese universities were going to have to start enrolling foreign students otherwise they would stop certain classes due to lack of students. On top of that with the aging population, Japan is on its way to being a first world country to have a higher death rate than birth rate. Overcrowding won't be an issue. http://www.kairos-inc.com/Investing/IB%20on%20Japan.7.16.pdf (projected information) http://www.worldpress.org/profiles/japan.cfm (current since 2001) To suggest that the natives will starve as well is an over exaggeration, there is plenty of food and as with anything in life, people will adapt.

Here is an article explaining it a bit better from the other side of things.

http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/2765.cfm

If there was some indication that security restrictions were helpful I'd feel a LOT better about them but like you and other posters have said they seem so random. How, for example, is your typical TSA securoon going to know if my LiIon batter is 6 or 9 cells? Why is 1 9 cell battery ok and 2 3 cell batteries not allowed?

All we need to do is go by the Israel standard. If they do it on el al isreal then we do it, the same way, same training 4 personnel, etc. Seriously, they've been stopping much more focused terrorists for way longer and they do things quite differently.

Last point - there are tons of things you can buy behind the security checkpoints - I've seen metal letter openers, long very sharp hat pins and other things that are way more dangerous than some of the things they've taken out of my bag.

"World Press Review takes an in-depth look at the role of international law and the United Nations in the debate over whether to go to war in Iraq." http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/

Not that I think it will help much, but one should always try to help improve the capabilities of the challenged.

CC.

Apparently the Cuban health care and education systems are amongst the best in the world and are available to all Cubans. Most of Cuba's hardships seem to come from the trade embargoes enforced by the US.

http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1659.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1739773. stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/52 32628.stm
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/185.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Cuba

In the US all women are REQUIRED to wear tops. Yea, except this loose definition also includes just a bikini, or a sport bra or just about anything. Here's a quote describing this more:
According to authorities, the crackdown's objective is to put pressure on the women and girls who "pay no attention to the Islamic social values by the way they dress." Offenders are mainly young women and girls who wear shorter, tight-fitting coats, capri pants, smaller scarves, and light-colored dresses. Such items burst onto the clothing scene during former president Mohammad Khatami's reformist administration, when women had other choices beside the traditional long, dark-colored, loose-fitting gowns which had been previously compulsory. Also note how in the first paragraph they said: "-- in some cases boys --".

The sad thing, as previously mentioned by someone, is that in some of these Islamic countries they can't even discuss these things, or complain. Their Islam heritage is so perfect that it doesn't need to change. Also see this link. In that BBC article there is this great quote: There is always a crackdown at the start of summer as women start wearing more skimpy clothes because of the hot weather. It is hot, but their great Islamic leaders don't believe that women have a right to stay reasonably cool. I don't think your argument, saying that the U.S. or whomever has similar codes of what is moral and upright to wear in public, holds.

Oh, it's no big deal, at least in your world. Where is that, by the way?

They do, don't they?
Iran has freedom of the press....well, if you only read the government approved press,sure.
Iran has freedom of religion.... sure, if you're Muslim..otherwise, you're dead.
Iran has freedom to assemble with your friends....as long as they all agree with the Mullahs.
Iran has freedom for women to be educated, manage their own lives and.... hmmm...never mind.

Can you quote a source where a US Government official has said "we don't give a shit about international treaties"? I'd like to see it, because it doesn't exist. See, some treaties would deny the US its sovereign powers, and give more power to the fine leaders of Iran, like President Ahmadinejad who says Israel should be wiped off the map. Can you offer a link to a quote where Bush, Cheney or any government official ever said "we don't give a shit...?" If the US refuses to be part of any treaty preventing the "militarization" of space, it's in our best interest because it must mean Iran or other non-democratic states will have more power.

Great post on oil drilling but your economics is flawed. [SNIP] We give them dollars and they give us stuff.

The tender [for mid-war Iraqi oil; the war isn't over and has probably only just begun], for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar.
in
See also Carol Hoyos and Kevin Morrison, "Iraq returns to the international oil market," Financial Times, June 5, 2003 and
Faisal Islam, "Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro," Guardian, February 16, 2003

What makes the IOB [IRAN OIL BOURSE] the subject of such interest by the American government? According to rumors, which first vaulted the issue into the spotlight, the financial exchange in the aforementioned bourse will trade for oil in euros instead of the U.S. dollar.
Iran's Oil Bourse: A Threat to the U.S. Economy?

In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market.
The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker

Interesting, can you please provide a source for a Muslim state swearing the destruction of Israel.

Well, if you read my post, you'll see that I specifically did not state that, but since you asked: At a conference in Tehran on Wednesday entitled "The World without Zionism," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Now, I haven't made an in depth study of middle eastern politics, but from what I observe, it seems to me that muslim states generally do not announce a desire for the destruction of Israel, but are highly tolerant/supportive of political groups (usually known as terrorist groups, I am deliberately not using this term) who do have this stated objective (as I outlined in my previous post). They get the diplomatic benefits of seeming moderate, but if western governments were so tolerant of hate groups, they are seen to be supporting them (which no doubt is sometimes the case). The groups that do announce their intention to destroy Israel often have very significant political influence in their countries, even to the extent of being a "state within a state" as Hezbollah, for example, has been referred to.

I think Linus is a good coder and project manager, but we shouldn't expect him to "show the way" in issues of principle/vision. He's an engineer, not a "freedom fighter".

People are being extradited to secret camps. Others are being shot for reporting on corrupt regimes. Some live in house arrest for years on end. Others are tortured for crimes that they have nothing to do with. It is VERY GENEROUS to call someone who fights against the right of software developers to control the distribution of their works a "freedom fighter." Considering the state of the world today, I find it amazing that people really see their ability to tweak their software as a humans rights violation. It is a minor licensing issue. MINOR. LICENSING. ISSUE.

Starving? There are more overweight and obese people than starving people in the world.

THERE IS PLENTY OF FOOD TO GO AROUND!

People are starving not because we're not using enough GM stuff.

They are starving because of a few very greedy and evil people. You ship tons of food to some famine-ridden country in Africa, next thing you know, the army seizes all of it and sells it, and the people still starve.

Or things are screwed up by corruption, incompetence, ignorance, and yet more greed. Take Malawi for an example: http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/703.cfm [1]

Or Sudan, you air drop food supplies to various areas, and people trying to collect the food get shot at by other people.

And as far as I know this GM stuff sure isn't a brilliant idea from generous nongreedy people. So anyone who thinks GM food will reduce the proportions of starving people around the world significantly is naive.

I claim the real goal of GM foods is to make the rich few richer, and not to feed the starving.

The evidence is plain to see - just look at how Monsanto etc view their GM crops or "Intellectual Property".

Feeding the starving isn't very profitable, y'know.

Making rich fat people keep wanting to eat even more is profitable.

[1] Excerpt:
"Girma Begashaw, the IMF representative in Malawi, strenuously denied the IMF had done anything of the sort, saying that it had been a consultant hired by the EU who had urged Malawi to sell its reserves."

Actually it's a bit unfair to diss British cooking.

Oh, please. Try to argue with something a little more convincing than your own personal anecdotal evidence.

In any case, it is difficult to find grossly obese Brazilians

I can find some pretty chunky ones.

If you really think that Europe is for some reason "less free" than the US, than I would suggest you take a look at the http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15333"> Worldwide Press Freedom Index, which lists it in a solid 44th place on the index of freedom of the press, which is mainly what you are talking about when you discuss speech on the Internet, since it is a form of press.

The US has really dipped a lot in this lately (20 places in the past year).

fact: did you guys know that costa rica is only using wind and water power?

Blah blah blah..

It's actually about 2% from fossil fuels, which is still outstanding, but that's only because 83% comes from hydro power alone. Costa Rica is a very small country with huge elevation extremes (3,810M to sea level), which makes hyrdo power much more practical than in other locations. Additionally, the energy consumption per capita in Costa Rica is on the order of 1,800kWH per capita per anum compared to 13,700kWH in the US.

No, I claim that foreign countries would not stand for it and subsequently either a communication blackout would have occured, or, far more likely, an ITU like structure would have to be developed. This is precisely what is happening now to the Internet.

Besides, there is ALREADY an international group in charge.

There is not. The "I" in ICANN stands for "Internet" not "International" and ICANN is fully US controlled.

One other thing - the authorization was written into 1441. Go read it. I like to use information that I have verified, rather than attacking someone because they might sound like a personality that I despise.

No it was not. I read it very carefully. It warns of "serious consequences" to be determined by the UN (at its next security council meeting on the subject, which never took place). In contrast to 1991's resolution 678 which specifically states "all necessary means" which is the standard dimplomatic way of declaring war. Similarly in 1990, the series of resolutions started with 660 for the initial nebulous warning (such as "serious consequences" which is equivalent to that of 1441) via 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674 and 677 and finally 678 where an actual authorization is given to use "all necessary means".

True, it contains something like that, but that resolution does not contain authorization for war, unlike the resolution 678 which explicitely does. US simply decided, unilateraly, to pretend that it does.

So it was up to the UN to enforce it.

No it wasn't. US had no authorization. But members of US administration wanted the war badly, for personal and ideological reasons. The rest is history.

So please stop rehashing this old, discredited, worn crap about how "poor US" has been selflessly "enforcing" UN resolutions only to be bashed by "ungrateful" furriners ....

maybe these brits should go back to boiling every piece of food to death, instead of using stupid words on slashdot.

How are we supposed to know which words you understand? Are we psychic? Sure I know a few words like 'pants' that cause confusion, but to expect people to translate for you is just childish.

As for the food 'quip', how about four out of the top ten restaurants in the world being in Britain, compared to two in the USA.

But, by our traditional and very libertarian American standards, it's getting worse. The most dramatic example is the arbitrary placing of left-wing activists, including a nun, who have nothing to do with terrorism on no-fly lists. There is also good old Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act (the infamous "library clause"), which despite reports otherwise has been used. There have been the expected right-wing media attempts, aided by John Ashcroft, to equate dissent with terrorism. And, finally, there is the renewed effort by Bush's Justice Department to crack down on anything it deems pornographic using whatever means occur to it.

I would not be surprised if Cindy Sheehan is never able to get on an airplane again.

Canada is doing the same think. A local business in Vancouver, around for a decade (and long before the games were coming near here) was attacked by the olympic committee over having the olympic rings logo over the"Olympic Pizza" restaurant.

It's big-business greed at it's very best, especially since the coming of the olympics will ensure that the Whistler skihill will be inaccessible to anybody but the rich, as the cost of attending the olympics is beyond many average folk, and the rates in the area are already skyrocketing in anticipation of the games.

Olympics were around long before trademarks, and used to be for the people... now they're only for big-business and rich people, go figure.

And it does so for a good reason as it was NOT authorizing any such thing. Not until resolution 678 an authorization for war was given.

From there:" Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;" (emphasis mine)

This is what an authorization to go to war looks like. Note the resolution numbers: 660 for the initial nebulous warning (such as "serious consequences") versus 678 (via 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674 and 677) where finally an authorization is given to use "all necessary means".

You are such a retard that it is beyond description.

So to again visit your shadowy world of paranoia and delusion - obviously there was no war to push Iraq out of Kuwait because the words 'war' and 'military action' never appear in the statement. What a genius you are.

"authorizes" and "all necessary means" do appear in resolution 678. Note these words "authorizes" and "all" as in: including "war" or "military action".

Also note the lack of any such authorization for this latest little Crusade of yours in Mesopotamia.

See, I didn't attribute that quote to Annan. I attributed the statement to Hans Blix.

Quote you: "let me clip some of Annan's statements for you: " followed by, three italicized and indented quotes. And in between of two Annan quotes: "Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has said Iraq had failed to provide evidence in its declaration to prove that it no longer has weapons of mass destruction", which implies Annan speaking of Blix.

That peanut of a "brain" of yours must be turning into jelly by now, as it appears you are no longer able to even keep track of your own lies and misrepresentations.

Yet you still try to claim that this is some misinformation campaign by Powell.

Powell is a rank amateur, compared to your mighty powers of distortion.

You, as expected, hunted around until you could find a loose enough definition to attempt to pretend that you meant something else entirely. You made a mistake. Just admit it.

I love this comedy. Even the definition you dug up, is correct, although imprecise. Even by that definition you were wrong. Not only was I not mistaken, but you did get exposed (again) as an illogical imbecile that you are, beyond any doubt whatsoever. So now you come back blustering again as if nothing happened, trying to brush off the entire thing after having run out of hot air to blow.

So we will now assume that you have conceded the following points:

You can "assume" safely that you are a cretin. Thats given. As to the points, let's see:

The United States assisted Europe in WWII for reasons much more complex than 'profit'

Your question was, quote "Perhaps you can explain why the US and Canada both provided materiel for the war before the US was attacked" implying that "self-preservation" (earlier mentioned by me) was not the driving cause. To which I gave you the primary reasons, conceding that "profit" preceded "self-preservation" time wise. You now pretend that you advocated some third, previously not mentioned position, that of "reasons" being "more complex then 'profit'" and pretend that I had disagreed with it, which incidentally I never did, quote "Well, while the fact is that there were indeed many reasons for USA's beahviour, you did not ask me to speci

[..] 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.

Isn't there an underground lake in Asia that yields the possibility of life on America?

Sadly, the current prognosis isn't all too encouraging.

How many terrorist incidents have there been in the US since 9/11? The Macy's Parade looked pretty calm to me.

eh? Acts of terrorism are stable if not on the rise. So, we haven't been bombed on American soil in 4 years? That's not something to brag about.

Story 1 -- global terrorism rose in 2002
Story 2 -- global terrorism sucks. US may be as safe as we were since 9/11 but reelection may prompt new acts
Story 3 -- Rise in terrorism in 2003 over 2002. (Note in the first article 2002's numbers were understated though.
Story 4 -- Lebanese, people who actually know something about terrorim, see 100% rise due to foreign policy.
...

It's all google-able. And if we count those 'insurgents' as terrorist, which we're fond of doing when it serves our purposes, terrorism is astronomical.

I've got it on good authority that the only Iraqis getting killed are the ones that hate freedom . And remember, freedom is messy .

1968 was an important year in world history, no doubt about it. In 1998, there was a wave of documentaries, books and essays about that year. The authors focused on yippies trashing democratic convention in Chicago, Warsaw Pact invading Czechoslovakia, student uprising in Paris, Mexico massacre, flower-power, maoism, Vietnam war, Beatles recording white album or Che Guevara in Bolivia.

Almost nobody noticed that 1968 was also the year when Noyce an Moore founded Intel, Douglas Engelbart demoed for the fist time GUI, mouse and word processing, UCLA and Stanford started to build their networking connection. Even today, scholars seem not to notice the relevance of these facts.

Well, to whatever extent the rest of the world was with us after 9/11, I'm sure you agree they are much less with us today. Now partially their support for us was based on sympathy, and that can be expected to fade over time. However, you can't ignore our unilateralism and jingoism as factors that raise eyebrows around the world.

And I must point out, you have conflated Al Qaeda and the attacks of 9/11 with Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq. Indeed the world, including France, was with us when it was us vs. Al-Qaeda. Remeber France's declaration "We are all Americans" in Le Monde on Sep. 12, 2001? In case you don't here's the link. Remember hundreds of thousands taking to the streets in protest all over the world against our invasion of Afghanistan? Neither do I, because everyone saw the plain-as-day justification for that.

Now, I know the point you're trying to make. Saddam was handing out bribes in the oil for food program. And I can see how that would be a reason to oppose the war. Your argument is that such bribery is the sole reason France, Germany, et. al. would oppose the war. Nevermind that Iraq had bupkis to do with Al Qaeda, and Saddam and Osama bin Laden are politically farther apart than Dick Cheney and John Edwards.

Sure, Colin Powell and Bush went to the UN and tried to make the argument that Iraq was the logical next step in the war on terror. Everybody in the world collectively said "huh?" except for about half the people at home, our "special" allies the British, and a few others who saw an opportunity to curry favor with Uncle Sam, such as Poland and Spain. (Is it possible Poland and Spain knew about the Oil for Food abuses, and figured this was as close to a slice of that pie as they were likely to get?)

And as we know now, and some opined then, there were plenty of doubts about the "slam dunk" intelligence, which never made it to the President's ears, yes mysteriously still resonated among reasonable people everywhere.

In conclusion, you cannot imagine how ironic I find your statement "You cannot imagine how badly I wish the world were as simple as you people make it."

A news organization has the luxory to announce maybes and possiblys about serious security issues, the government does not.

Of course they don't. That would make them look foolish, and give people a reason to vote them out of office.

This is censorship.

But, I guess it's ok, since Mugabe is "anti-imperialist" or something--yes, leftists actually peddle lines like that to excuse the crimes of their favoured dictators!

Here's another suppressed story the left won't talk about, because it might threaten the purity of another sacred cow. And to think, the same people who screamed for every spoiled ballot in the 2000 presidential election to be counted want to go by a quick overview of a few machines to declare a stolen referendum legitimate. Pathetic, but it's the kind of hypocrisy you have to expect from the left.

My most embarressed and sincere apologies!

Normally when I see Nukes, Vietnam, and giving weapons technology to Isreal, I naturally think of the US.

In any case heres info on France and Algeria

If you're after a non-US perspective, you might want to try World Press Review. There are a handful of other similar magazines, but I find WPR's content to be diverse (topics that I wouldn't otherwise pay attention to on google news), impartial (they regularly include articles on the same topic from the same area from sources with different slants, so you get a feeling for what both 'conservative' and 'liberal' media in whatever country is saying), and informative. The only frustrating thing is there's a big lag time, but I don't think that's very solvable.

I read World Press Review, which collects, translates, and publishes articles from around the world. It's a great source for a different perspective, and it's interesting to know what is front page news in other countries.

How often does artillery come into play in a coup?

I love /.

I get to make Bushies foes!
It's cathartic I tell you!

And I might as well get it in: Anti-Bush != Anti-American. I'm British, I love americans, I employ americans, I love americana and that's actually why I hate Bush with such a passion. After all, as that liberal French rag Le Monde said so well, "Nous sommes tous Americains". :)

Although I can't find it now, I would swear I just read something regarding China's efforts to modernize and expand their naval ability in World Press Review. Anyhow, this article by the 'Navy League of the United States' seems to take a pretty middle-road look at China's navy, coming to the conclusion:

" In the coming de-cades, the Chinese Navy presents the real likelihood of expanding its capabilities significantly. As it does so, it also is likely that Beijing will increasingly view the Navy as a mechanism to exert pressure on China's neighbors and to assert its influence regionally."

I am not as convinced today as I was several years ago that 'China's saber-rattling is just bluster' -- they seem to be making progress towards modernizing and expanding their naval fleet...

No world wars in 50+ years

No world wars? Do you recall the Cold War? Or more recently, the (insert brassy fanfare) "War on Terror"?!? Just because it wasn't an all-out, killeverythingthatmoves kind of war doesn't mean that hostilities didn't occur, or that it didn't involve the "world".

Has negotiated and enforced many peace treaties throughout that time.

And it has failed to negotiate and enforce just as many. Look up a country called Rhodesia and the history of the land it inhabited. No UN intervention there, and we're still seeing the fallout in central Africa. Or better yet, look at the strength of UN resolutions at work in Israel. There have been UN sanctions for decades against Israel, and it hasn't stopped the crimes one bit.

Economic and other sanctions have had positive effects on some countries.

Such sanctions have allowed dictators to divert funds from aid programs to build military infrastructure, enabled "ethnic cleansing" such as that in former Yugoslavia, and created situations leading to attacks on the US and other member nations.

WHO has done some fantastic work in the 3rd world.

Work which includes proposing some of the most restrictive "health" laws ever seen.

Is the world's first supra-national organization and, more remarkably, has had its power seriously challenged only a few times.

First?!? Even the UN admits that the League of Nations existed. And as for serious challenges to UN authority, you can look at the record of the last 50 years to see the endless challenges and flaunts of that authority. The UN has been ignored from Korea to Iraq.

Has, respectively, saved the countries of Korea, Kuwait,and many others i'm forgetting by using multinational forces to defeat a common agressor enemy.

The UN saved Korea? The Korean War didn't end. It is still in a negotiated ceasefire, and is still a divided country. As for Kuwait, the country it was ceased to exist when they were invaded. To say that the UN saved these countries is to ignore the facts. It would be more proper to say that the UN helped to alleviate some of the destruction caused by internal or external aggressors, and in some cases aided the victimized society to rid itself of the invading force.

I'm not trying to say that the UN is a failure. However, the current political and economic climate make the organization more of a pawn to a few powerful nations than a true supranational entity charged with protecting the peace and enforcing international law. While it has contributed somewhat to international stability, it can be seen to offer selective stability, chiefly for Western nations that expect UN backing for their own whims.

</offtopic rant>

I completely concur. Mod this guy up. Except that he didn't place a strong enough emphasis on:
Including Saudi Arabia, which is mysteriously uninvaded at present. .
Saudi Arabia is the number one supplier of economic and moral support to terrorists world-wide, as well as having been deeply entrenched in the September 11th attacks.

Why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia? I didn't support Afghanistan, and I certainly didn't support Iraq, but taking a look at Saudi Arabia might have an easier time making it onto my list of sane options (that is, if we should be invading anyone at all.)

Oh, except for the fact that the two holiest Moslem sites (Mecca and Medina) are in Saudi Arabia, and since Israel is already "occupying" (hah!) their 7th or something holiest site (i.e. the Temple Mount), we might as well leave those two alone.

(Sorry, haven't quite grokked the insert-link process)

Go read the World Wide Web Consortium's 10-minute introduction to HTML

Or just go to your browser's View menu, and look for Source. A link looks like this as source code:
<a href=http://www.worldpress.org> World Press Review </a>

and looks like this in the browser window:
World Press Review

See? The part between the 'opening tag' (the thing that starts with 'a') and the 'closing tag' (the thing that starts with '/a') is what you see on the screen. The browser typically underlines it for you and/or changes the color, and if you click on it it takes you to the address to the right of the href=, which is inside the tag, and therefore is not text to be displayed, but an instruction to your browser.

...is the reading room section of World Press Review Online. It collects news stories from papers and magazines worldwide, and categorizes each source (centrist, independent, government-owned, news agency, etc.)

From their masthead: "World Press Review is published as a nonprofit educational service to foster the international exchange of information. It contains material reprinted from the press outside the United States, as well as originally written material. Articles are subject to editing, translation, and excerpting. Illustration and photo selection, captions, and some headlines accompanying reprinted articles are by WPR's editors. Letters may be edited for length and clarity."

The longest transmission line in the world is the "Inga-Shaba", a 1700kM 500kV single-phase transmission line in western Africa. That's 1056 miles, roughly the distance from New York City to Chicago. However, its max capacity is 560 MW because of reactive line losses, equivalent to the output of one medium sized fossil fuel plant. This past summer, the mid-Atlantic states alone hit just over 60,000 MW for an instananeous peak. In 1999, the United States consumed 3.45 x 10^9 MW-hours of energy.

That is the problem with solar power, any type of generation really, you cannot concentrate it. Energy is lost as heat, proportional to the resistance of the wire, which is proportional to the distance of the line. So #1, even if you can generate it, you can't transport it that distance. #2, the more you concentrate, one cloudy day would wipe out the majority of your generation... remember, this is not a 365-day guaranteed capacity source. Not to mention #3 that a common sand storm in the desert would crack and scratch your glass, driving up repair costs.

What you would need is a 100% distributed system, maybe one station per square mile across every population center in the US, minimizing the path between generation and consumption. Now, try to get local approval from the municipalities to install it (and junk up their landscapes). Then, calculate the maintainence costs to visit each one of these locations... astronomical.

Finally, your whole "war on terror" argument is, for lack of a better word, crap. Every statement you've made is an approximation, and your solutions assume the ideal. It's a thinly masked anti-war rhetoric pretending to pass as fact. If the war were really about oil, we'd drill it ourself on our homeland, and be done with those dictators in the middle east. Then you finish it off with a snide remark against the President's home state ... a quick Google search could have answered your construction question (numbers for off-shore Alabama):

Q. How long does it take to drill these wells? A. Miocene: 1 to 2 weeks; Norphlet: 6 to 12 months
Q. How much does it cost to drill these wells? A. Miocene: $750,000 to $2 million; Norphlet: $15 million to $40 million
Q. What is the average daily drilling rig cost? A. $100,000 to $120,000
Q. How much and long does each well produce? A. Miocene: 2 million to 15 million cubic feet per day for 1 to 10 years, Norphlet: 10 million to 126 million cubic feet per day for 10 to 20 years

From StudyWorks Online: "For example, the consumption of oil in the United States reached a peak in 1978, then decreased by almost 20 percent by 1983 as more fuel-efficient cars were introduced and less oil was used for electricity. However, gasoline consumption increased again in the '90s as gas-guzzling SUV's and small trucks became more popular. Nonetheless, oil consumption is currently increasing by only 1 percent per year, and consumption in 1999 was only 3.5 percent higher than it was in 1978." Get those SUVs on a normal fuel usage plan. Improve gas-electric hybrids. Encourage more efficient fossil fuel generators. What we really need is efficiency, not alternative generation.

• News need not be free of viewpoint - A journalist friend of mine tells me that 'objective', viewpointless news was more or less a marketing invention of the US wire services, so that the could sell to a broader range of papers. The pusuit of 'objective' news yields mainly hidden biases and stupid writing, where 'balance' consists of quoting people on both sides of the issue. What news should be is honest and free of bias, not utterly without viewpoint.
• Other countries do it differently - In the US, the newspaper industry has collapsed into, for the most part, local monopolies obliged to be inoffensive. In London, the home of the article you mention, they have a variety of newspapers, each with its own political viewpoints. The Guardian is known to be pretty lefty.
• Not everything printed in a newspaper is news - Columnists, reviewers, pundits and other sorts of experts are generally selected specifically for their opinions. This appears to be just such a piece.