Slashdot Mirror
A New Meaning For Geotargeting At Monster.com
Duke submits a link to this New York Times story, according to which "it seems that Monster.com has taken the U.S. government's policy of sanctions against certain countries and run with it where no man has gone before. Monster 'has deleted resumes that list current addresses in those countries.' and more fun stuff. If you haven't had the opportunity for a really self-rightous post in a while, Monster.com has made it simple for you." Update: 04/28 01:34 GMT by T : Note that the New York Times ran the story, but like many other newspaper stories, the real credit goes to the Associated Press.
This is an associated press article and u can access it without the registration here
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
Monster.com has already partially retracted this new policy. Now you just can't pick one of the blacklisted countries as a place you'd like to work. News.com has the updated story.
I wrote: "*Ignoring here means not going to war or placing sanctions, not to ignore it completly or quit paying attention to a country." Where they ever a treat to US? Yah, maybe 40 yeas ago during the Cubile missile crisis. (you started the whole thing by placing nukes in Turkey BTW. But the Soviet Union did not start with sanctions agaist them even though they also was a country pretty close with a diffrient type of government di they?
But, you know what? I Castro wanted to blow Miami to pices with a warhead today ( he don't as far as I know) he could probably done it. The luxary palaces was not build from money from the oil-for food prog. UN has stated that 95% of the money in the programm where used correctly (food, aid, drugs etc.) The remaining 5% went for UN admnistration of the program.
If Saddam built any major new palaces after '91 it was probably from money either from smuggling or from taxes
Yes, the sanctions worked in keeping them from rebuilding their military. But putting sanctions on a country is not a long term sollution on a problem as it hurts the people of the country more than the government.
Dealing with whoms fault it is... USA supported Saddams regime greatly (economic support,political and weapons as chemical and biological)during the eighties when it served US interest. Running away and saying it's all one mad mans faullt is to easy. I have never said that diplomacy is the only way of handling conflicts. But in many conflict even after diplomacy has ended is it possible to solving problems without the use of millitary.
In the recent case of Iraq it was your goverment who did not want to continue with inspections. In some cases the use of military force is legitimate, in some it's not. UN is nothing more then what it members wants it to be. Noone have ever said its a perfect system.
In the recent case of Iraq it was in fact USA who did not want to continue with pressure on Iraq and continuing of weapon inspections. Probably because they would not have been able to remove Saddam that way. The UN sanctions where made to keep Saddam from getting WMD, not to remove him.
According to the UN charter when diplomacy fails and the security council faills to agrre on a resolutions that is the end of the road per se. The fact that your country choose to ignore this and attack Iraq anyway says alot about the USA today.
In those 12 years Iraq never attacked any of their neighbours or used any WMD. As long as the inspections had continud it is also unlikly that Iraq would have been able to build, import or use WMD.An please show me where that poison gas is hidden will you?
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
If you'd read the artical, you'd see the quote from someone at the government agency responsible for implementing those regulations saying that what monster did is not required by the law.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.