World Summit On The Internet And IT

eegad writes "The Seattle PI reports on the upcoming first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society to be held in Geneva on December 10-12. 192 nations are involved in the effort to set some ground rules for the Internet (a little late, eh?) including ways to deal with spam, a possible "digital solidarity fund" to help developing nations, and discussion of UN regulation. The goal of this phase is to adopt a "Declaration of Principles" and "Plan of Action". Some countries plan on asking for a UN commission to study new ways of running the Internet aimed at the 2005 phase. The official website will provide coverage of the event. How come I wasn't invited?" The Washington Times also has a piece on it, as well. We had covered this a bit before.

Comments

cross your fingers..

[grub]

192 nations are involved in the effort to set some ground rules for the Internet ... including ways to deal with spam

I hope Nigeria doesn't have any sort of veto power at this summit.

Re:cross your fingers..

[Zocalo]

Actually, given the probable means of applying the death penalty in Nigeria (stoning), combined with the Nigerian government's efforts to crack down on 419 scams, I rather hope Nigeria *does* have a big say at the conference... I'll be right at the front of the queue for a bag of gravel, and some nice pointy rocks when the first spammers get marched out.

Re:cross your fingers..

[kinnell]

Actually, given the probable means of applying the death penalty in Nigeria (stoning)

The death penalty is carried out by firing squad in Nigeria. You do get to watch, though, if you're into that sort of thing.

Re:cross your fingers..

[Zocalo]

Actually they have multiple means of carrying out the death penalty in Nigeria; firing squad, stoning and hanging I'm fairly sure of, and there maybe others. There was a case recently where a Nigerian who became pregnant after being raped was to be stoned in accordance with the fundamentalist religious law in that part of Nigeria. What was probably a local tribal matter initially somehow managed to acquire the attention of just about the entire world. Even so, it took considerable pressure before the poor woman was released.

Re:cross your fingers..

[Saeger]

I'll be right at the front of the queue for a bag of gravel, and some nice pointy rocks when the first spammers get marched out.

And even though I despise spammers just as much, I would never seriously cheer on barbaric execution (or even painless execution for that matter).

Spammers belong to the mutant class of humans with no conscience and a selfish-gene stuck in overdrive, but they don't deserve death for it.

--

Re:cross your fingers..

[McAddress]

Gosh, don't any of you know that the punishment for sending spam in Nigeria is Windows.

Best thing they can do

[corebreech]

Stay the fuck away from my Internet.

That said...

It might be nice to encourage people to use bittorrent to download porn. The bandwidth savings would be akin to quadrupling router capacity across the Net.

Or, maybe fix email by requiring everybody to send ciphered messages only. Require/encourage mail servers to permit a user to provide it a gateway public/private key through which all incoming email must satisfy (not the same as your personal public/private key.) Solve spam and nine-tenths of Echelon with one single kick in the balls.

Then, get over this self-inflicted trauma over raw sockets. Raw sockets are cool. Raw sockets + UDP can all but eliminate the nastier p2p problems, like how to work through firewalls, as well as how to send data anonymously. These are good things. Let good people do good things with good technology.

But we can do all of these things through education. We don't need the UN/Geneva/Britney Spears to tell us how this whole thing should work.

Re:Best thing they can do

[Hubert Q. Gruntley]

Agreed on most points.

I'm not sure PKI needs to be part of the SPAM solution. Three reasons:
1) The same clueless ficktwizzles that set up their mail servers as open relays (224K of them? according to ORDB.org) will also be setting up their mail server certificates. No, this isn't fraught with peril.

2) There isn't a black market (that I'm aware of, doh) of private keys. Client certificates are useless, server certificates are useless unless you also own the domain name, code signing certificates, well, um, yeah I guess those are dangerous. But we've seen the lengths spammers will go, and I can easily foresee a huge market for stolen certificates, if now every domain has one to send mail.

3) The _last_ thing we need to do is get Verisign slobbering over using certificates for email. Over in the SPF discussion mailing list there are Verisign people who want certificates in the DNS records published by SPF.

Re:Best thing they can do

[ferricoxide]

Hmm... do you really think that this will do anything to Echelon other than use more compute cycles? Do you really doubt that the operators of Echelon have enough compute cycles to crack SSL encrypted emails?

Re:Best thing they can do

[McAddress]

But we can do all of these things through education. We don't need the UN/Geneva/Britney Spears to tell us how this whole thing should work. Yes, but we definately need Britney Spears for other things ....

Re:Best thing they can do

[d34thm0nk3y]

Hmm... do you really think that this will do anything to Echelon other than use more compute cycles? Do you really doubt that the operators of Echelon have enough compute cycles to crack SSL encrypted emails?

ah the eternal debate...

yeah, but if everyone was using them then it would raise the total computing power exponentially, hopefully making it too expensive to monitor everybody. Obviously, if the feds already have their eyes on you they can break you encryption like nothing.

Re:Best thing they can do

[Pixel Chick]

While reading your initial remarks, I was so totally amazed that on the one hand you could have such an enlightened view that technological advancements would ultimately enable "the Internet" to regulate itself, while at the same time exhibit the kind of ignorant redneck speak that makes one marvel that you can even type at all. Next time spare us all the expletives because even if you disagree with Total Wimp, at least the guy is articulate.

Re:Best thing they can do

[ferricoxide]

And, of course, unless you're using quantum encryption or other similarly dynamic crypt system, all the have to do is compute the keys used to create the messages and the computational horsepower required for each subsequent crack goes down radically. :(

Re:Best thing they can do

[corebreech]

I see this is your first time.

Was it good?

NYTimes has an article too...

[astroview]

Check out the NYTimes article, it points out a bit of the criticism of the whole process.

Link (reigstration req'd, blah blah)

Re:NYTimes has an article too...

[Hobbex]

Who needs the NYT when we have the esteemed publication of the Reverend Sun Moon!

Of course, how many of you knew this.

Re:NYTimes has an article too...

[ZWithaPGGB]

What the UN, and the morons that ejected Paul Twomey from the meeting, don't understand, is that in order for their edicts to hold sway, the Internet must adopt them.

They have no real power, and they have even less over a network based on collaborative peering.

You can't dictate any change to the Internet. It has to be adopted by consensus. These self-important NWO Bureaucrats can say whatever they want, exclude whoever they want, and ruminate in whatever way they want. The Internet is no more under their control than it is under mine.

The fact is, the UN is less and less relevant. When despotic African kleptocrats and sponsors of terrorism got to chair human rights and anti-terrorist commissions, the whole thing was shown up for what it's been since the 1972 oil embargo: Bad window dressing on the failure of Metternick's fancy of a world government of nobles.

Who cares about the UN, let them waste breath and money at will. They have no real power. Power comes from the governed, and the Internauts care naught for the UN.

Bad idea?

[stry_cat]

The goal of this phase is to adopt a "Declaration of Principles" and "Plan of Action".

Seems like we're doing ok without this stuff.

Some countries plan on asking for a UN commission to study new ways of running the Internet aimed at the 2005 phase.

Am I the only one who thinks this is going to be a bad idea? It's like getting the government involved only there is no way for citizens to influence the policy.

Re:Bad idea?

[Marxist Commentary]

Well, a centralized authority in control of the internet, while possibly restricting some current freedoms could make tremendous positive impacts in others. For example:

Spam could be outlawed once and for all worldwide, with harsh penalties for violation.

An international agreement of standards for content could bring freedom of information to places where there is a lack of information.

Centralized taxation - an agreed upon method for providing revenue streams to the UN which would allow taxes to be paid across various countries.

Elimination of various objectively hateful websites from the internet, e.g., holocaust denial, neo-nazis, gun merchants.

This doesn't sound all bad to me, though admittedly there are some drawbacks. For example, the administrative costs might be fairly high, but these could be worked out I think. Perhaps an email tax on corporations?

Re:Bad idea?

[pla]

Well, a centralized authority in control of the internet, while possibly restricting some current freedoms could make tremendous positive impacts in others. For example:
<snip>
This doesn't sound all bad to me

Or for a few more examples that appeal to various major world governments:

• Outlaw the use of all "hard" cryptography.
• Centralized taxation (Did you forget your meds this morning?????)
• No more porn, or at least nothing hard-core
• "Perfect" monitoring of all traffic, shared with all member governments
• Extradition to, say, Syria, for exercising my American freedom of speech and religion

Sorry, but this has a LOT more potential for a bad outcome than for improvement on the few flaws the internet currently has. Keep the governments (any or all, doesn't matter to me) the hell away from the net!

Re:Bad idea?

[tuxedo-steve]

In a decentralised system (as the Internet is), there are only two possible ways for it to be properly regulated. Either:

• Every national government agrees to the terms of the regulation.
• The accepted protocol changes to allow for regulation by a single, central authority.

Neither of these will happen. Under IPv4, there will always be regions that do not entirely comply with any given authority. Any protocol change would have to be universal for the latter case to occur. If a protocol provides for the possibility of a central organisation with the ability to effectively censor material, it will not see a universal uptake.

The governments of the world need to recognise, right now, that there now exists a system that is immune to effective universal censorship. It's not going away. The rules have changed, and they're not going to change back.

Deal with it. Most of your citizens already have.

Re:Bad idea?

[mrkurt]

1. Define "spam". What is "free speech" to some people might be defined by some despots as "spam".
2. Define "hateful websites". See point #1, above.

While your goals are laudable, the devil is in the details of their implementation on a global scale when many of the world's people live under governments that are not truly democratic and transparent. Centralized authority leads to great power vested in that authority, which leads to great potential for abuse. See my top-level comment about how the West could already do this

We who live in democratic nations have the responsibility to reject spam and hate speech-- we already have the tools to do so.

Re:Bad idea?

[Rasta Prefect]

Spam could be outlawed once and for all worldwide, with harsh penalties for violation.

Good in theory, unlike to be enforced/agreed on in practice.

An international agreement of standards for content could bring freedom of information to places where there is a lack of information.

Again, good in theory, but I highly doubt the countries with serious human rights issues are likely to go along with it just because some UN body tells them to. I mean, the UN's been telling China to quit whacking political dissidents for years, doesn't seem to have had much effect.

Centralized taxation - an agreed upon method for providing revenue streams to the UN which would allow taxes to be paid across various countries.

Eh. Probably wouldn't be a bad thing.

Elimination of various objectively hateful websites from the internet, e.g., holocaust denial, neo-nazis, gun merchants.

Whoops! Apparently Number 2 was supposed to be "freedom of information, except information I don't like". I'm not particularly fond of Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers, but then I'm not particularly fond of Marxists, either. They all have a right to speak. And gun merchants are "objectively hateful" eh?

This doesn't sound all bad to me, though admittedly there are some drawbacks. For example, the administrative costs might be fairly high, but these could be worked out I think. Perhaps an email tax on corporations?

I think you've just demonstrated exactly what the problems would be. Also, an email tax on corporations? Get real. Whos going to collect it, and how? For that matter, given that they're already paying for the bandwidth (And undoubtably taxes on that) why should they have to pay an additional tax to use it to send email? And who is this tax paid to, hmmm? Last time I checked the UN didn't have authority to levy taxes anywhere.

"a little late, eh?"

[musikit]

not really. considering it takes OUR government 10-20 years to recognize technology. i would say this is a rather fast turn around for a body of government set up by bodies of government.

Al Gore

[pdjohe]

I heard they are going to make Al Gore in charge of the whole meeting.

After all, he did create the thing, right? ;)

hunt down spammers

[m0rphin3]

The best thing they can do is make it illegal for spammers to get safe harbor anywhere.
Or, failing that, to make sure that spam only gets sent to the country of origin somehow. That would eliminate 90% of my spam, which is from the US.

Probably it will only end up in another treaty the US will refuse to ratify, like Kyoto and the International Court of Justice.

Re:hunt down spammers

[sulli]

Yes. But the best thing they can do is have a talkfest accomplishing nothing, like all the other UN world summits. As long as they issue some bland communique talking about how we need to make technology better for the children, that is fine. If the ITU tries to take over the internet, the US needs to shitcan that treaty faster than Kyoto.

(If they don't like the internet, they can always build their own. I hear Minitel is a nice technology built by an ITU member.)

Re:hunt down spammers

[thrillseeker]

it will only end up in another treaty the US will refuse to ratify, like Kyoto and the International Court of Justice.

The U.S. should rightfully continue to refuse to agree to any treaty that has not been shown to be in the best interests of the citizens of the U.S.

Re:hunt down spammers

[spectrokid]

The U.S. should rightfully continue to refuse to agree to any treaty that has not been shown to be in the best interests of the citizens of the U.S

Wait until NY comes below sea level. Then we'll see what is best for US citizens.

Re:hunt down spammers

[Inda]

I'm alright Jack. How's your back?

Re:hunt down spammers

[Telex4]

Yes. But the best thing they can do is have a talkfest accomplishing nothing, like all the other UN world summits. As long as they issue some bland communique talking about how we need to make technology better for the children, that is fine. If the ITU tries to take over the internet, the US needs to shitcan that treaty faster than Kyoto.

Take a step back and ask yourself why many UN summits, debates and conferences, are only able to produce bland communiques. Answer? Because the UN is a forum of nation states, and supposing that all of those states might reach some kind of consensus is pretty hopeful. Does this make them pointless? No! Of course not! The UN is a debating society in a sense, and it provides one of the few opportunities for countries to talk to each other with equally sized delegations in supposed equality.

And out of these debates come, eventually, solid policy that is usually good. Look at the IPCC, UNESCO, the UNHCR, UNAIDS, and lots of other valuable agencies and initiates that aren't reported because the media usually dislike success unless it's patriotic.

So would the UN come out with some solid policy that takes over the Internet, that provides vast powers to governments to censor and control information, that (dear God) violates Americans' rights? Extremely unlikely, IMO, since there would simply be too many Governments opposed to it. If you look at what they're actually discussing, and put aside the paranoid ramblings some people are spewing at this news, it's all about widening access and closing the digital divide that is a *big* problem in all nations, yes even the US, but especially in developing nations, as well as combating SPAM.

Re:hunt down spammers

[Telex4]

The U.S. should rightfully continue to refuse to agree to any treaty that has not been shown to be in the best interests of the citizens of the U.S.

Of course if you are so uneducated as to not know that treaties like Kyoto and the ICC, whilst not obviously in America's short term interests, are in fact in America's long term interests, you might say something so daft in the context of Kyoto and the ICC.

Have a read about the prisoners' dilemma and you might see what I mean.

Re:hunt down spammers

[HawkingMattress]

The U.S. should rightfully continue to refuse to agree to any treaty that has not been shown to be in the best interests of the citizens of the U.S.

Suuuure. So, speaking about kyoto, you think it's legitimate that the first pollution creator of the world refuses to reduce it at all ? At the cost of degrading the earth ? Who cares, after all it has no direct impact on the US citizens right now. Let's fuck the world as usual, others be forced to find solutions anyway

Re:hunt down spammers

[thrillseeker]

Of course if you are so uneducated as to not know that treaties like Kyoto and the ICC, whilst not obviously in America's short term interests, are in fact in America's long term interests, you might say something so daft in the context of Kyoto and the ICC.

Sigh.

Why does your disagreement start with an insult? You have no idea of my educational level or experiences, and your instant reversion to an ad hominem attack doesn't do much to endear me to listen to any argument you might present. Isn't part of a good education learning how to argue a point like an adult, or should I just insult you back?

The treaties that you are so enamored with may be viewed as of benefit to you or yours - but they have not been viewed as sufficiently beneficial to the citizens of the U.S. - or they would have been agreed to. Instead, they place the burden of cost on the U.S. with few perceived benefits.

Kyoto would exempt "developing" nations - so in effect dirty manufacturing would end up moving to those places even faster because it would be cheaper - it would basically make such places (which I have visited in my professional, albiet uneducated life) even more unpleasant to live in - is that what you want to do to those poor countries to make yourself feel like you've "done something"?

The ICC has already shown its true colors in attempting to charge various U.S. citizens for "warcrimes" in the U.S.-led action in Iraq - exactly to what advantage of the U.S. citizen is it if the U.S. would need to subjucate itself to such a body before taking actions it feels are necessary for its defense? Mother-May-I was a stupid children's game in the fist place - a sovereign nation certainly sholdn't play it.

If the world scientific and political body can convince the administration of the U.S. that Kyoto or something like it will benefit the people of the U.S. above what it will cost, then the people of the U.S. will call for its adoption.

Till then, piss off.

Re:hunt down spammers

[randyest]

Of course if you are so uneducated as to not know that treaties like Kyoto and the ICC, whilst not obviously in America's short term interests, are in fact in America's long term interests, you might say something so daft in the context of Kyoto and the ICC.

You say that with such confidence that, if I didn't know better, I might actually buy it. Care to back up your claim that Kyoto and ICC "are in America's long term interests"? Or are you just trying to convince via confidence and namecalling?

I, for one, don't buy it, especially regarding Kyoto -- that POS was exactly counter to America's short- and long-term interests, IMHO. Of course, that's my opinion, and I stated it as such. But since you're so sure that I'm wrong, I'm excited to learn of the basis for your matter-of-fact assertion.

Re:hunt down spammers

[Telex4]

I admit my response was rather offhand and rudde; I was in a rut responding to people accusing the UN of having no worth. Not a great excuse, but anyway...

Kyoto wasn't drafted with attacking US interests in mind. It was drafted to try to provide some piecemeal beginning to efforts to tackle climate change, and to manage that it just so happened that the world's biggest polluter was going to be hit the hardest, and that the nations least able to act now would be exempt, for the sake of getting some treaty through, and in the hope that in the future, properly pushed, better and more far reaching treaties could succeed it to include developing nations.

Of course, whether or not it is in America's long term interests depends on what you think about climate change. For my part, I believe the reports from the UK & US governments, from the UN panel on climate change (IPCC) and from just about every scientific body that isn't associated with the Global Climate Coalition, a mouthpiece for Esso/ExxonMobil, that suggest that it is a serious problem, perhaps (according to Hans Blix) even more of a worry than WMDs. Only the US Republican Party and some US Democrats seem opposed to Kyoto, and that strikes me of extremely misjudged short-termism. Climate change is something that can only be tackled collectively (hence the link to the prisoners' dilemma); if we don't act collectively and accept small losses now, we'll all be faced with extremely large losses in the future.

Re:hunt down spammers

[MegaHamsterX]

If Kyoto was a hard edged anti-pollution measure then fine, but it's not, allowing poor countries to pollute, and paying for credits to pollute is hardly environmentally friendly. It sounds more like extortion.

No one should pollute, but that is easier said than done, due to the real problem of overpopulation in the world.

The world will balance itself out with or without us, that may involve plagues, unstoppable diseases, etc. Look at Africa, it's in action now, imagine airbourne aids.

Re:hunt down spammers

[cayenne8]

"Probably it will only end up in another treaty the US will refuse to ratify, like Kyoto..."

I thought I noticed the other day that Russia wasn't wanting to sign on to Kyoto either...so, not just US.

Re:hunt down spammers

[baileytal]

OK, I'll bite.

The reason the US should sign on to Kyoto and the ICC is because it *is* in their best long-term interests.

Both of these treaties espouse what the US wants the world to believe are US ideals. The US constantly talks about itself as a world leader in environmentalism and the fight for humane, legal international activity. The US always projects itself as a world leader in the fight for human rights, and insisted on being involved in the development of the many treaties these accords would enforce. But when it comes down to binding itself to the ideals the US has insisted on, it suddenly decides to refuse to be counted. This makes the US look like a cynical, manipulative and untrustworthy nation and puts it in the ranks of the 'rogue states' that the US spends so much time decrying.

How credible does it make the US look when they insist on rules, and then refuse to be bound by them? Does the US really believe it will be convicted by the ICC? Does it really think it will be plunged into economic disaster by Kyoto? Neither of these accords is sufficiently toothsome to seriously injure anything but the overstimulated pride of some members of the US state department. Most of the Americans I've met in my life actually *believe* in the ideas of accountability that these international documents attempt to implement. I's just the PNAC-type cabalists who want to be above the law.

So, to argue that signing on to these agreements "isn't in the best interests of the US" is simply falling for the line fed to you by those who stand to lose something by having their previously unaccountable behaviour measured against a standard that the US itself had a hand in creating. Sure, maybe the US will be 'held accountable' for some of the stuff that has gone on, but do you honestly think the US will not come out smelling like roses? If you think that the US has been involved in some genuinely inhuman behaviour, don't you think it serves your collective conscience better to have it out? Do you think that by not accepting blame for your mistakes that somehow the world holds you in a higher regard?

How is it not in the US's best interest to walk the talk?

Re:hunt down spammers

[Dravik]

I'll point out that no country has the legel protections for its citizens that the US does. The US still runs on the principal that power is granted to the government by the people. Rights are are defined as inseperable from the person. Most Europeans I have read seem to approach rights as something granted by the government. The US is the far out extremist compared to almost every other country in our theory of government. To submit ourselves to the judgement of those other countrys is to dilute our theory of government. How can we while believing that power flows from the bottom up put ourselves under people who believe that power flows from the top down? In addition the US Constitution declares itself to be the law of the land. The constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war and grant letters of marque and reprisal(military actions short of delcaring war). This is why UN and ICC support cannot be required for the US to preform military actions. To require that would undermine the very bedrock of our governmental system.

Re:hunt down spammers

[Matrix272]

Damn, I wish I had some mod points. The parent deserves to be a +5 insightful / informative.

Re:hunt down spammers

[randyest]

it's all about widening access and closing the digital divide that is a *big* problem in all nations

If I understand correctly, "digital divide" is the buzzword used to refer to the fact that some people do not have internet access, right?

How, exactly, is this really a problem? I mean, in any county? See, for a long time there wasn't an internet at all, and somehow life went on. Then just a relatively few people used the internet and, again, life went on. Now that a (relatively) large number of people use it, it's somehow a "big problem" that not everyone does/can?

How? Why? I'm serious. I don't see how an Ugandan dirt farmer needs the internet at all, much less how it is a "big problem" if he doesn't have it. For that matter, I can't see how anyone lacking netness can be a "big problem". We're not talking about food, water, shelter here. Unless you mean slashdotters, of course :)

Serously, back off of the crisis button a bit. Your hyperbole dilutes everything else you say.

Re:hunt down spammers

[randyest]

Kyoto wasn't drafted with attacking US interests in mind.

That's irrelevant. Attacking (primarily) US interests is what it does. The road to hell is paved with good intentions -- feel free to add a brick inscribed with the Kyoto treaty. It'll fit right in.

You think it is good. Not everyone agrees. Stop stating your (relatively uninformed) opinions as facts; it's tiresome, and it makes me not want to listen to anything you say.

Re:hunt down spammers

[sheldon]

"The ICC has already shown its true colors in attempting to charge various U.S. citizens for "warcrimes" in the U.S.-led action in Iraq - exactly to what advantage of the U.S. citizen is it if the U.S. would need to subjucate itself to such a body before taking actions it feels are necessary for its defense? Mother-May-I was a stupid children's game in the fist place - a sovereign nation certainly sholdn't play it. "

Absolutely.

Now if only the invasion of Iraq had had something to do with America's defense.

Re:hunt down spammers

[Imperator]

Let he whose country is without spam throw...

Re:hunt down spammers

[Doug Neal]

The U.S. should rightfully continue to refuse to agree to any treaty that has not been shown to be in the best interests of the citizens of the U.S.

Well it is in the interests of the rest of the world.

But the USA don't give a fuck about anyone but the USA, do they? And why should they? They're doing just fine. To hell with everyone else. And that's your answer to the "why do you hate America" quip right here.

Re:hunt down spammers

[anto]

Increasingly the way to access services is via the internet. You want to pay for your water & electricity - thats via a browser now. You want to buy cheap books & CD's well just browse over to amazon. Have some really good coffee beans you want to sell direct to small companies - well its pretty damm hard without some cheap communications system.

Re:hunt down spammers

[danila]

...that has not been shown to be in the best interests of the select few citizens of the U.S.
That would be more correct. Do you honestly think that Bush and alike think about your interests? And the question no longer is whether the US government wants a regulated Internet, the question is - are they OK with an international body regulating it. Even if they don't sign the UN treaty, they will still do everything they can to control the Net. But they might actually do sign the treaty, as long as it allows each government to be as opressive as they want and to set their own standards of crime-think, err. I mean objectively hateful websites.

Re:hunt down spammers

[m0rphin3]

How about for education?

Seriously, it _is_ a major problem. Several countries have only access to state-run biased news, if any at all. Unbiased news sources could, for instance, inform citizens that their current election is rigged and that foreign advisors are being forcibly ejected from their country.

If farmers sell their produce for, say, 50 cents and were to learn that the same produce costs a hundred times that in the West, they might inform some Western activists about it and raise a stink.
Probably the company in question would lose more money if people were to boycott its products, than if it were to raise the wages.

Re:hunt down spammers

[randyest]

Really? So I don't mail a check to my water or power companies every month? Huh. I sure thought I did.

Access to online bill payment, cheap CDs & books, and B2B comprise a "big problem"?

You do know all of these things happened before the interenet, right?

Seriously, show me one utility company that only accepts payment via the internet and I'll reconsider, but for now I have to stick to my original claim: the "digital divide" is not a "big problem."

Re:hunt down spammers

[randyest]

I won't argue that some of the stuff you mentioned are benefits of internet access. However, I fail to see how lack of a benefit is sufficient cause to call something a "big problem".

I mean, I can think of benefits to everyone having his or her own airplane. And many people do own one or more(!), but so many more do not. So, when are we going to start solving this "aircraft divide" crisis?

In fact, with personal aircraft and unlimited fuel provided by US funding, that farmer could just fly anywhere he wants to check the real news from the outside, or raise a stink with activists anywhere in the world.

I'm being facetious, of course, but the point is that just because something provides a benefit doesn't mean that is is a basic right or that the better-off must chip in to make sure the less-well-off have it too.

Re:hunt down spammers

[anto]

I was not saying that *now* you have to have the access. Currently to perform more than a few functions with my bank account you either have to front up in person or use the internet client.

Campanies are starting to add charges for paying via certin expensive-to-process methods. If I paid my health insurance via cheque it would cost me almost 20% more.

In the future B2B will allow small transactions outside nation states this small uncontrolled commerce has never existed like it will in the future (and to some extent now).

10 or 15 years ago I could not order CD's from the US (or UK or Ireland etc) in real time with up to date catalouges. I couldn't at the last minute book a cheap hotel room on the other side of the world. All of these examples can be ingored as fringe cases - but at some point I suspect that we will start to consider some kind of information access will be a requirement.

As you stated currently it is the postal system that provides the required access - why would it stay this way?

UN/ITU Power Grab?

[fuzzybunny]

There's an interesting article about this at El Reg. I'm pretty worried about what's going on there; for all the failing of ICANN, it's always been sort of emblematic of the prevailing idea in western countries to keep bureaucracy from throttling the Internet. Think what you will about various nations bad handling of Internet traffic and user rights, the over-corporatization of the net, and ICANN's distasteful tactics over domain handling; the Internet as we know it is a far cry from what it might have been had the ITU been allowed to be the driving force behind it.

I don't relish the idea of the type of bureaucrat who brought us WIPO deciding by fiat where the greatest communications revolution in human history is going to go.

Re:UN/ITU Power Grab?

[OldeTimeGeek]

Sorry to burst your hyperbole, but the greatest communication revolution in human history was moveable type.

Re:UN/ITU Power Grab?

[YetAnotherAnonymousC]

Well, if you're going to be anal, it was moving from grunting to language. =)

Re:UN/ITU Power Grab?

[evrybodygonsurfin]

Moveable Type is pretty cool but surely, like, printing was more important?

A little late?

[Shaper of Myths]

Isn't this the technological equivolent (time-wise) of the U.N. right now in 2003 trying to decide what to do about this 'Hitler' guy? To quote my favorite Vorlon: The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

But maybe I'm just pessimistic and jaded...=)

While talking about spam

[Anonymous Coward]

I have made a spam fighting software eigenpoll

If you know something about spamtools
please go vote.

Knud

So long Internet, it was nice knowing you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Organizations like the UN, unaccountable by most means in their actions, will only try to leverage further control by government authorities to make sure we're all trackable and monitored for "appropriate behavior". Nothing good will come from this. Kiss the "free" anarchy-style of the Internet goodbye.

Re:So long Internet, it was nice knowing you.

[katz]

Times are changing. Nations need more accountability now than ever before, especially in the face of Islamist terrorists. I support profiling and tracking if it enables governments to crack down on terrorists.

Such a bad idea.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I know others ahve already commented about this, but honestly what good can come from this? I don't want any part of the internet under UN control. Right now the internet is mostly apolitical and thats the way it should stay. I cannot believe this could lead to anything good.

Re:Such a bad idea.

[jxs2151]

I don't want any part of the internet under UN control.

I find it hilarious that the same Slashdot crew that was screaming for UN control of the Iraq situation now wants nothing to do with the UN when it comes to the Internet. Seems to me the desire for the UN to intervene was mere anti-Bush propganda.

Changing your position when it suits you is intellectually dishonest and is known as hypocrisy. Have the balls to hold your position.

The UN has no business in anything. Intelligent people can look at their track record and come to the conclusion that they are more fucked up than a football bat.

Re:Such a bad idea.

[the_mad_poster]

Iraq: a soveriegn body thrown into a state of anarchy by a sudden, violent overthrow of it's psychotic government. Individuals go from absolute, ironfisted rule to none. Result is potentially disastrous. U.N.'s role would be an enormous boon to keeping the peace and helping to manage this sudden situation since the idiots that overthrew the government didn't bother to plan past the end of the military operation.

Interent (post mil control): a technological marvel that began in a destabilized anarchist state of individual computer systems and servers and has functioned just fine since then in that state. Result is an enormous amalgam of ideas, good and bad, that has managed to govern itself fairly well since then. U.N.'s role would be to jump into something it doesn't understand in the least where it's not needed.

Result of stubbornly comparing apples and oranges without the slightest hint of intelligent thought once entering the post: +4, Insightful.

Watching someone on Slashdot bitch about nobody taking us seriously: Priceless.

Re:Such a bad idea.

[bjhonermann]

"Seems to me the desire for the UN to intervene was mere anti-Bush propganda."

The desire to have the UN involved in Iraq is to make the invasion have some resemblance of legitimacy. To make it clear that this occupation isn't about the United States' ego and that it really is about helping Iraqi citizens. The inclusion of the UN could go a long way towards repairing the damage already done to the US's image and towards stopping the attacks on US soldiers happening every day. What do we stand to lose?

Added to this, US tax payers are currently funding almost the entirety of the occupation (which in my opinion is only right since we decided to go at it unilaterally). Getting the UN involved could lessen the burden on the already weak US economy.

As to your perception that it's the same people who oppose Bush's occupation plans that are against UN regulation of the Internet, three things.

First, Slashdot is a big place with lots of different people and viewpoints.

Second, the Internet isn't broken, it doesn't need guidance from a slow-moving organization like the UN, and there is little to be gained from having a global governing council in charge of Internet issues. One of the beauties of the Internet is that there is no single regulating agency that can control and monitor all content. Once that entity is formed the free form Internet that we all know and love will begin to break down.

Lastly, the UN isn't something to be considered universally good or universally bad. The UN does some good things and some bad things. The same person can both praise it what it does right and critique it for what it does wrong. You're "Us vs. Them" mentality is outdated for the modern world, there is no singular them to scream about.

Re:Such a bad idea.

[jxs2151]

...to make the invasion have some resemblance of legitimacy.

Please explain to me how an unelected body composed of a majority of countries governed by dictators can grant anything legitimacy?

Good try though....

...the damage already done to the US's image

If the US made decisions based on how it "affected our image" the world would have long ago descended into brutal dictatorial chaos, while we sat on the sidelines wringing our hands worries about "our image"

Tut, tut

Re:Such a bad idea.

[HawkingMattress]

Changing your position when it suits you is intellectually dishonest and is known as hypocrisy. Have the balls to hold your position.

Nah, what you talk about is not "changing position when it suits you", it's called having the intelligence to judge a situation, and not blindly say "I'm ok with UN, whatever they say, because that's my camp". That's what all those pesky politicians do all the time you know, they'd never agree that the other camp has a point. That's childish.

I was for UN control of the Iraq situation, and I think it ws a very very bad move for the US to do what they did. But this time it was about a war you know with real people that dies and all that. Whatever the final move would have been for the US, it could have been wise to listen to what the rest of the world thought about it.

Here, we're speaking about the frigging internet ! Nobody will die from receiving one more spam or whatever, and we all know that UN (or whatever) control could only make the internet more restrictive.

Re:Such a bad idea.

[Lost Race]

I find it hilarious that the same Slashdot crew that was screaming

"The same Slashdot crew"? You mean that monolithic, lock-step hive mind that posts millions of messages under hundreds of thousands of different names -- including, for example, yours? You find it hilarious that you (The Slahdot Crew) screamed about one thing then later screamed about something contrary? OK, I guess we agree that is pretty funny. That is, if "we" can really be considered to "agree" on anything, since you and I aren't really separate individuals, just two inseparable and indistinguishable components of The Slashdot Crew.

Re:Such a bad idea.

[Pee-Wee]

Ya know, I would completely agree with you if we all had access to some kind of Bush-firewall.

iptables -A INPUT -s PRES_BUSH -j DROP

Re:Such a bad idea.

[Matrix272]

Iraq: a soveriegn body thrown into a state of anarchy by a sudden, violent overthrow of it's psychotic government.

Yeah ... and like it wasn't violent for the last 30 years or so... even less than it is today, as a matter of fact. Not that you'll ever find the facts because most of the paperwork was burned by Saddam's henchmen. You'll probably find the hundreds of thousands of bodies though. Good luck. Let me know how that works out for ya.

Re:Such a bad idea.

[sheldon]

"Changing your position when it suits you is intellectually dishonest and is known as hypocrisy. Have the balls to hold your position. "

Ok, I firmly believe that the UN should be engaged in both Iraq and the Internet.

"The UN has no business in anything. "

The UN provides the basis for International Law, the ability for countries to come together and formulate treaties explaining how they shall treat one another. I see no other UN involvement in the Internet other than that, but it is a necessary level created by Globalization of our world economies.

UN involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq, primarily in regards to humanitarian and civic services would have given credibility to the US occupation. Unfortunately now as the coalition falls apart, it's looking more and more like a US Imperialist excursion, which is the last thing we needed for US foreign policy.

"Intelligent people can look at their track record and come to the conclusion that they are more fucked up than a football bat."

If there is any failure with the UN, it is because of the lack of leadership and involvement by the Bush administration. It's amazing to me how little Republicans understand about representative democracy.

The UN isn't some third party entity, nor is the US govt. As the citizens of the United States are to the US govt, the member nations are to the United Nations. If there are any failures, it is because of our own inability or unwillingness to exert leadership.

See how easy it was to be logically consistent and bash Bush at the same time?

That was fun! Let's do it again!

Re:Such a bad idea.

[sheldon]

Where were the Republicans when Al Gore and Jesse Helms pushed for the End Genocide Act of 1988?

President Reagan threatened to veto it, so it didn't pass in the House.

I find this hypocrisy rather disgusting.

Re:Such a bad idea.

[bjhonermann]

"Please explain to me how an unelected body . . ."

*Cheap Shot* You mean like President Bush? *Cheap Shot*

". . . composed of a majority of countries governed by dictators can grant any legitimacy?"

I fail to see how the US going unilaterally offers any more legitimacy. The United States didn't even weigh the concerns of other nations that are impacted by this war. We made some very false attempts at getting permission but when it became apparent that the UN security council would not even show a majority approval (omitting the vetoes that were going to happen anyway) Bush decided that we didn't need any approval. This was our war and we were going to fight it one way or the other. How is that legitimate? We are a global body with global responsibilities, but part of that responsibility is responding to the concerns of other nations.

This is all aside from the fact that the war was fed to US citizens and the world under false pretenses. The UN weapons inspectors managed to find and destroy many more WMD than the US since the occupation. That doesn't seem to support the cause of legitimacy.

Now, don't get me wrong. Saddam was an attrociously evil ruler and I'm happy that he is no longer in power, however, this is not the way that diplomacy should be done in the modern era. Removing leaders simply because we do not like them is not a way to work in the global public's good. The US has a history of ignoring and supporting dictators that we simply seem to like better. What was so special about Saddam? I've yet to see any convincing evidence of his involvement in 9/11.

I'm still waiting to hear what exactly we have to lose by allowing the occupational force to be run by the UN.

Re:Such a bad idea.

[jxs2151]

...*Cheap Shot* You mean like President Bush? *Cheap Shot*...

For someone who seems so interested in rules, legitimacy and truth your propaganda methods are straight out of the Bolshevik handbook- When you lose fairly and according to the rules, make it appear as if the rules were broken, even if they were not. President Bush was elected by the rules of law. Just because you didn't like the outcome doesn't mean he wasn't elected.

Your use of this lie really undermines any arguments that follow.

I'll address them anyway, even though most of them are false and have been proven so.

...was fed to US citizens and the world under false pretenses.

The main pretense of the war was a provable danger to the United States and its citizens. The first and foremost function of the government is not being a welfare state but protection of its citizens. We really don't care about how this affects Syria, Iran, etc. We shouldn't either in anything other than an ancillary way.

...this is not the way that diplomacy should be done in the modern era.

And pray tell, how is it done? The Franco-German way? Hmmmm?? Block any action in the UN that endangers your financial interests? Unless and until the UN can show that it is anything more than a convenient forum for petty dictators and loudmouth bureaucrats we have no obligation whatsoever to pay any amount of attention to them.

I am gonna stop here because I am wasting my time on your unsubstantiated, specious arguments that are mainly fed by your willful ignorance of the facts.

Heh, gotta love the U.N.

[mikesab]

Since the U.N. is inherently a governing entity, it will invariably feel the need to regulate everything it can. It is in its very nature to regulate. They even managed to throw in the word "solidarity". Every time I hear that word, my ears perk up.

Re:Heh, gotta love the U.N.

[jxs2151]

The UN is most assuredly not a governing entity. Government is a right granted by the people. I granted them nothing, not even indirectly, therefore they are not a governing body- a debating society perhaps but certainly not a governing body.

You like-a 'da net?

[Anonymous Coward]

You like the internet just the way it is? Give control over to the UN. Look at their track record, they've never done anything but have meetings on when to have the next meeting. It's a powerless, functionless, purposeless body that exists only to put all the beggers seeking favor from the worlds rich democracies in one place.

It's like putting almost all the Mormons in Salt Lake city. If we didn't they'd be at your house all weekend, and you couldn't have a moment of peace in which to enjoy the game. Any game.

First Election

[tds67]

I can't wait until the first Information Minister is elected.

And it will probably be Darl McBribe.

Re:First Election

[Mohammed Al-Sahaf]

Do not believe the lies my friend. There is only one man for this job. Make no mistake, when I am made Minister of the Information Society the blood of the spammers will flow like wine. Our low price septic tanks will be full of the corpses of the armies of slaughtered spammers. We shall strike them down like the dogs they are. They are superpower of villains. They are superpower of Al Capone. And we shall destroy them.

Obvious Benefit

[ikoleverhate]

If the UN starts arguing about the net, it'll be a good ten years before any one nation can do anything definite with the net. Hopefully by that time freenet will be fast and stable, and greedy politicians won't be a problem for the net anymore.

Feck Off Crow

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave it the hell alone! No one asked you to fix anything, no one wants your influence on the net. I think we should have a vote on this:

• Should the UN Shut the Fuck Up? Yes__ No___
  
• Should the UN be Abolished? Yes__No__
  

I vote yes on both accounts. To hell with globalization efforts, all you do is exploit everything and everyone for your own gain.

Re:Feck Off Crow

[mrtroy]

• Should the UN Shut the Fuck Up? Yes__ No_x_
• Should the UN be Abolished? Yes__No_x_
• 
  
  I vote no on both accounts. And your comment about to hell with globalization efforts is very narrow minded and ignorant.

analysis

[theMerovingian]

The goal of this phase is to adopt a "Declaration of Principles" and "Plan of Action".

Person 1: Sounds like it was created by an MBA.

Person 2: Actually, it was a committee.

Person 1: OK, a committee of MBA's.

Person 2: A committee of MBA's who work for the government!

Both: (run away and hide under cubicles)

Re:analysis

[baileytal]

A committee of MBA's who work for the government!

That's called an MPA -- Masters of Public Administration. It's like an MBA, but without the detailed, textured understanding of the market. Instead, they focus on the human resources aspects of human performance management. They're basically PHB's without even the pretense of business knowledge.

just say NO to the UN

[Shivetya]

Sorry, but they can't manage anything. The United Nations is a failed idea looking for relevance. Unfortunately anything they take over becomes a mockery of what it is supposed to.

Worse, the UN routinely caves into member states that are notorious violators of human rights. What good can from an organization that has human rights committees comprised of brutal dictatorships? Of disarnament committees run by the same?

Sorry, a UN managed internet would simply give certain 3rd world countries (and some European) a new means to bash or otherwise attempt to restrict prospering Western countries. It would advance anti-Jewish attitudes, probably going as far as to restrict Israel! China would be given free reign to threaten Tiawan and run ramshackle over tibet. Can you imagine what these nations would want to classify as SPAM?

No thank you. ICANN might be annoying but at least we can lay hands on them

Re:just say NO to the UN

[Telex4]

Sorry, but they can't manage anything. The United Nations is a failed idea looking for relevance.

Right, so you've nothing to say on UNESCO, UNHCR, IPCC and goodness knows how many other good things the UN does that are fantastic and absolutely necessary. You just don't mention them because many media outlets, out of ignorance and a desire to criticise, have got an obsession with claiming the UN is worthless.

Worse, the UN routinely caves into member states that are notorious violators of human rights. What good can from an organization that has human rights committees comprised of brutal dictatorships? Of disarnament committees run by the same?

Do you know why? Think for the moment of what the UN is: a forum for governments. Maybe the failure of the UN to really tackle human rights issues is because the governments in the UN, and in particular in the security council, deliberately skirt around human rights and try not to get too many legally binding documents through that would kill off their own industries. Hello UK, USA, France, Germany, Russia, etc. The problem with the UN in this regard is that its member states can be so damn hypocritical.

Sorry, a UN managed internet would simply give certain 3rd world countries (and some European) a new means to bash or otherwise attempt to restrict prospering Western countries. It would advance anti-Jewish attitudes, probably going as far as to restrict Israel! China would be given free reign to threaten Tiawan and run ramshackle over tibet. Can you imagine what these nations would want to classify as SPAM?

Wow. Evidence? Does the UN routinely "bash" Israel? It passes motions condemning its human rights abuses, just as it does for all human rights abusers, but it is hardly anti-semitic. The only people who claim that are those who simply cannot discern the difference between anti-Semitism and 'anti-Israeli-Governments'-policy-ism'. It's like all the 'anti-American' nonsense.

I'm worried about what the WSIS will come up with too, but let's at least be rational about this, rather than sensationalising ignorant nosense!

Re:just say NO to the UN

[Tom]

What good can from an organization that has human rights committees comprised of brutal dictatorships?

How serious would they take an organization that only allows the nice-and-dandy in? This is a planet-wide organization, they have to give everyone a say, and that especially includes the ones that everyone else would rather see silenced.

would simply give certain [countries] a new means to bash or otherwise attempt to restrict prospering Western countries.

So far, every time I read the actual protocols, it more looked like these "certain countries" wanted something like a share of the prospering, and not a restriction. Now if you think for a second, if you take a share of something, it is in your best interest for that something to be large.

Of course, newspapers, politicians and other 2nd hand sources with an agenda usually have no trouble turning things their way.

Which is why you should check original sources if you can, instead of buying your opinions wholesale from the paper boy.

Can you imagine what these nations would want to classify as SPAM?

Sure, but this is the UN. If there is one trait that has been very constant over its existence then it is that of unbelievable levels of compromise. Everything at the UN level gets washed down to the lowest common denominator, and a bit lower just to be sure.
If we need a definition for spam, then a UN-created definition is sure to be the most restrictive. In fact, I'm sure most of us here would whine how much of the spam it doesn't include.

ICANN might be annoying but at least we can lay hands on them

We can? Who exactly is "we"? Sure doesn't include me, or anyone else outside the US. Which just happens to be about 95% of mankind.

Re:just say NO to the UN

[Permission Denied]

Sorry, a UN managed internet would simply give certain 3rd world countries (and some European) a new means to bash or otherwise attempt to restrict prospering Western countries. It would advance anti-Jewish attitudes, probably going as far as to restrict Israel! China would be given free reign to threaten Tiawan and run ramshackle over tibet. Can you imagine what these nations would want to classify as SPAM?

Sorry, but am I the only one who identifies this as flaimbait?

What gives occidental countries a greater right to speech over other cultures? The West may have the power to impose their views upon others, but does this power legitimize imposing their views?

Consider the example of the WIPO, which is controlled by western countries. Western ideas of "intellectual property" are forced upon African and Asian countries, meaning they cannot produce medications for their own people, but have to buy medication from Western corporations at artificially-inflated prices. Had these smaller nations not been strong-armed into signing agreements on intellectual property, they would have been able to afford medication for their people.

This phrase strikes me as particularly frightening:

It would advance anti-Jewish attitudes, probably going as far as to restrict Israel!

Have you not considered that perhaps Israel should be restricted, as with all other governments of the world? Israel (one of the world's worst human-rights violators), is subject to the same international laws as other countries. These laws are agreed upon at international conferences such as the one proposed, and these conferences should receive participants from all manner of nations, even those that believe Israel illegitimate.

It is, of course, easier to sign an agreement than to enforce it, so these agreements are regularly disregarded by the most powerful nations (Israel declaring that the Geneva convention does not apply to suspected terrorists, the US inventing the term "illegal combattant" to circumvent international law regarding prisoners of war), but the first step to ensuring that all nations are held responsible for their actions is unilateraly agreeing upon standards to uphold.

At first, I agreed that no useful regulation can come of this summit and that the Internet should remain absolutely unregulated. However, while formulating this post, I begin to see what "restrictions" against Israel you may fear. Whereas in the US computer crime is performed mostly by harmless vandals and warez groups, in the Middle East network attacks are often motivated by politics. What international law stops the Mossad from attacking the network infrastructure of an opposing political group or funding vandals to deface opposition websites? At the moment, no such agreement exists.

If this conference forces powerful nations to listen to the viewpoints of the rest of the world, some good may come of it.

Re:just say NO to the UN

[the_mad_poster]

You do realize that the only reason ICANN has any power is that people choose to listen to them, right? If you don't WANT to listen to ICANN, you don't actually HAVE to. They may be annoying, but if they ever got truly out of line and pissed off the majority of the Internet community, that majority would simply turn their backs to them and leave them to wither away like a memory of a bad dream.

Re:just say NO to the UN

[Wylfing]

This is getting pretty far afield, and I fully expect to be modded into hell as a "troll" for not expressing the required ultra-liberal U.S.-bashing attitudes, but here goes anyway...

it more looked like these "certain countries" wanted something like a share of the prospering

Ok, for one, NO. That's not what the superparent was talking about. But more to the point, this kind of statement is precisely why conservatives say liberals are brain-dead. (No I am not a conservative.) It utterly ignores economic reality. There is not some "magic pie" that "the West" has evilly grabbed more of than anyone else. Many 3rd-world countries have widespread poverty because all of the key ingredients for economic prosperity have been removed, and this is a direct result the brutal dictatorships described by the superparent. There is no investment spending in these countries, because getting a return on investment is impossible (if you make any money the thugs in power will take it from you). Without investment spending there is no economic prosperity. Hence, the citizens in these countries continue year by year to get poorer. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with actions by the U.S. or any other nation.

Of course, even in your magic pie world the citizens of these countries would still be impoverished. Upon "taking" (your word) a bigger piece of the pie, do you really think the dictator would generously share the spoils with the people he rules?

Re:just say NO to the UN

[randyest]

Sorry, but am I the only one who identifies this as flaimbait?

Yes.

What gives occidental countries a greater right to speech over other cultures?

Right is right -- who said this? I don't see it in this thread, even in implied form.

The West may have the power to impose their views upon others, but does this power legitimize imposing their views?

What the fuck is "imposing a view?" -- if we think something is right (such as the UN keeping the hell away from the net), should we just shut up and let others decide our fate because we don't have a "right to impose" our views? Take that to its logical extension and nothing ever happens, no one ever has an opinion (or at least they can't express it), no one ever takes a stand, praises good, condemns bad -- we all just sit around and argue forever until we reach unattainable universal unanimity?

Western ideas of "intellectual property" are forced upon African and Asian countries, meaning they cannot produce medications for their own people, but have to buy medication from Western corporations at artificially-inflated prices.

You need a tourniquet for that heart of yours? I can hardly believe what I just read. Would you rather the West hadn't developed the medications at all and left it to these African and Asian countries to do it? Great, then they'd be dying and even money wouldn't buy them he treatment they need, because it wouldn't exist.

I mean, give me a break here -- we spend gazilions researching and developing effective drugs, but then we should let the "smaller nations" (i.e., those who didn't spend the time or money to invent them) produce them without recoouping R&D expenses? You realize that it's impossible to continue that sort of inanity for long, right? We work, they don't but still benefit, we spend, they don't but still benefit. Great long-term plan.

Had these smaller nations not been strong-armed into signing agreements on intellectual property, they would have been able to afford medication for their people.

Er, sure. I'm so afraid you really believe that. Really. I guess we should just give them everything, efter all, we've reached our superior status via unfair and exploitative means, therefore we should surrender any and all things of value to those who were not clever or lucky enough to achieve superior status via unfair and exploitative means.

If this conference forces powerful nations to listen to the viewpoints of the rest of the world, some good may come of it.

Yeah, sure, listen to the losers. They always have all the answers, and oddly enough, it always sounds like this "help the losers at the expense of the winners".

Socialist.

Re:just say NO to the UN

[the_mad_poster]

All well and good, but "brutal dictatorships" does not explain every problem that leads to imporverished nations. Other common problems include famine caused by weather, poor agricultural processes, and overpopulation. Infighting is also a popular problem where rebels smash, burn, and pillage things and the government does the same.

Of course, there is also the problem of developed nations evilly usurping pieces of the magic pie. The whole game of cat and mouse with subsidies and tarriffs, etc. is used to keep rich industrial giants rich at the expense of people in other countries that can perform that same work cheaper (of course, sometimes you get dweebs like China that STILL play this game and keep their currency artificially low which is REALLY mean).

Beyond that, consider that some places are still struggling to get their agricultural systems plotted out. A favorite political move of politicions wanting to look like they actually do something other than sit around scratching their nuts all day is to "boost" the war on drugs in many of these countries. Since Americans keep demanding drugs, the logic goes, we'll go to the countries that produce the supply and indiscriminantly spray huge areas of crop, legitimate and otherwise. Yea, great. Americans demand drugs, so the solution is to wipe out all the crops on a village hillside. There's also the issue of monopolistic companies like DeBeer's that help those nasty rebel and government fighters in other countries (as mentioned above) by paying them for shady supplies of things like, for example, diamonds.

Don't kid yourself. The U.S. and other developed nations gleefully bend the little guys over for fat cats who contribute campaign dollars and that IS part of the problem that many of these nations face. If we were actually "playing fair" then there would be no issue over steel right now. Our steel industry is a mess and other places have better systems in place. Same goes for farming - it's just not something we can compete in any more at our level of society. If we'd just let these things go (not entirely, but rather than overproducing food and pushing it into otehr countries that need to compete, maybe we should just concentrate on feeding ourselves and stop the whole export thing altogether) and focus on moving on to the next thing, other places would have a better shot.

Of course, they still have to fix their political problems and there's not much they can do about natural disasters, but there's still a part of the problem that lies in our hands to solve.

Re:just say NO to the UN

[the_mad_poster]

"Worst debate... EVER!"

Wow... if you got any less attached to solid ground, you'd probably float away.

In case you haven't noticed, whether you like it or not, the developed nations of the world aren't the only nations in the world.

And, on the drug note: how much do you think it really costs to R&D a drug, on average? The most reasonable estimate I've seen is $400M USD before tax deductions. I've seen as low as $150M USD after tax, to as high as $800M USD before tax. All seems to depend on who you ask, so which total did you arbitrarily choose?

Now, call me skeptical, if you will, but why are the pharmas so antsy about letting people get at the truth? They release fantastic studies showing R&D costs topping more than 3/4 of a billion dollars, but only through groups that receive more than 2/3 of their funding through pharmas (Tufts Center, in particular). Groups with a vested interest in getting the ability to use / produce generics drop extremely low numbers, and, oddly enough, independant studies put the numbers in between the two.

of course, forgetting the fact that nobody can come to an agreement on R&D costs, you conveniently discount the fact that with their currently sky-high pricing, these drug companies are making astronomical profits and the fact that R&D on a drug is a one-time cost, but they want long-term lockdown on their drugs or the ability to simply disallow generics altogether. Interesting.

And, as I've pointed out before to people with a superiority complex (such as yourself), you can't just step on the "losers'" faces all the time and not expect to pay for it eventually. Only someone so truly ignorant of history and so ridiculously arrogant as a politician would be so stupid as to continually snub the "losers" in the world, believing themselves totally untouchable. How do you think terrorists come into being anyway? You step on the little guys face and he'll fight back as best he can (though, granted, the current breed of terrorist everyone is so pre-occupied with will go around blowing shit up regardless of what you do). Current "losers" have as much a right to speak their mind as anyone else. Nobody says the rest of the world has to listen to them, but that doesn't mean you should just tape their mouth shut.

Illuminati.

Re:just say NO to the UN

[randyest]

Of course, there is also the problem of developed nations evilly usurping pieces of the magic pie.

Did you even read the post to which you just replied? If so, yo missed the point: There is no magic pie !

The whole game of cat and mouse with subsidies and tarriffs, etc. is used to keep rich industrial giants rich at the expense of people in other countries that can perform that same work cheaper

Yep big conspiracy to keep the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It's always been that way. Wonder why the US managed to get so far ahead from such a crummy start? It can't have had anything to do with an environment that fosters and rewards success and ingenuity. It must be a conspiracy. Right. We couldn't have possibly pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps and gone from refugees with next-to-nothing to being the world superpower in a few hundred years by our own means, because that would imply that anyone could do it, which can't be true because then we'd have to stop listening to people like you who insist everything the US does is unfair, and that the US should foot the bill to fix everyone's everything, because it's the US's fault, somehow.

Re:just say NO to the UN

[Matrix272]

However, I also agree in part that the failure for that is due to a lack of leadership from the United States.

I hardly think we can blame the downfall of the United Nations on a "lack of leadership from the United States". We might be able to blame it on the United States leadership that puts other priorities above the UN's... or the US leadership that has doesn't blieve the same things you do... but certainly not a "lack" of leadership. Hell, we effectively eliminated one of the biggest dictators in the world thanks to the leadership of the US (right?).

Re:just say NO to the UN

[philbert26]

Wow. Evidence? Does the UN routinely "bash" Israel?

A UN committee recently approved a draft resolution condeming the killing of Palestinian children in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Some delegates at the committee expressed concern that the resolution seemed to ignore the plight of Israeli children killed in the fighting, and in response Israel introduced a similar resolution for their own children, which they later withdrew in the face of opposition. So yes, I'd say there was an anti-Israel bias in the UN, at least in the General Assembly. That's not to say that Israel can do no wrong. Even a biased assembly gets it right from time to time.

Re:just say NO to the UN

[randyest]

In case you haven't noticed, whether you like it or not, the developed nations of the world aren't the only nations in the world.

How is this sarcastic remark relevant?

And, on the drug note: how much do you think it really costs to R&D a drug, on average? The most reasonable estimate I've seen is $400M USD before tax deductions. I've seen as low as $150M USD after tax, to as high as $800M USD before tax. All seems to depend on who you ask, so which total did you arbitrarily choose?

None; it's not relevant to my point. My point is the drugs cost something to develop. The post to which I replied said "Western ideas of "intellectual property" are forced upon African and Asian countries, meaning they cannot produce medications for their own people, but have to buy medication from Western corporations at artificially-inflated prices." This doesn't say the drugs are too expensive, as you imply and as might be the case, it seems to be saying that our whole notion of IP us unfair, and we should be giving out the fruits of our work for free. I disagree. Moreover, if they don't like the price, they should invent their own. Stop mucking with natural selection. We need it.

Now, call me skeptical, if you will, but why are the pharmas so antsy about letting people get at the truth? They release fantastic studies showing R&D costs topping more than 3/4 of a billion dollars, but only through groups that receive more than 2/3 of their funding through pharmas (Tufts Center, in particular). Groups with a vested interest in getting the ability to use / produce generics drop extremely low numbers, and, oddly enough, independant studies put the numbers in between the two.

Thanks, but I have to ask: who cares?

of course, forgetting the fact that nobody can come to an agreement on R&D costs, you conveniently discount the fact that with their currently sky-high pricing, these drug companies are making astronomical profits and the fact that R&D on a drug is a one-time cost, but they want long-term lockdown on their drugs or the ability to simply disallow generics altogether. Interesting.

Don't like the current patent laws and time periods? Work to change them, but meanwhile leave alone those who are playing by the rules and making money. Profit != evil, you know.

And, as I've pointed out before to people with a superiority complex (such as yourself), you can't just step on the "losers'" faces all the time and not expect to pay for it eventually.

Show my where I said stepping on their face is OK, or deminstrate how NOT letting them have control the internet is anything like face-stepping and I'll respond to your asinine comment.

Only someone so truly ignorant of history and so ridiculously arrogant as a politician would be so stupid as to continually snub the "losers" in the world, believing themselves totally untouchable.

This is a fallacy of the excluded middle. Not letting them control the internet is NOT "snubbing".

How do you think terrorists come into being anyway?

Religion. Duh.

You step on the little guys face and he'll fight back as best he can (though, granted, the current breed of terrorist everyone is so pre-occupied with will go around blowing shit up regardless of what you do). Current "losers" have as much a right to speak their mind as anyone else.

So let 'em speak. No one said they shouldn't speak, just that the winners need not listen when they cry for control of something they think they're missing out on.

Nobody says the rest of the world has to listen to them, but that doesn't mean you should just tape their mouth shut.

And no one suggested that. Pay attention or STFU please.

Re:just say NO to the UN

[sheldon]

"I hardly think"

You probably should have stopped there.

"We might be able to blame it on the United States leadership that puts other priorities above the UN's..."

Who is the UN? Who hosts the UN? Who founded the UN? Which country should be leading what the UN sets as priorities?

We've given up, because it's hard. Yeah, Democracy is hard, it sucks, it means you have to go out there and convince people.

"Hell, we effectively eliminated one of the biggest dictators in the world thanks to the leadership of the US (right?). "

It's just unfortunate the Republicans didn't have the moral courage to do it back in 1988 when Hussein was actually a threat to the world.

Re:just say NO to the UN

[the_mad_poster]

How ironic that YOU, of all people, should talk about missing the point. Nobody is talking about how we got here, but, bear in mind, we got here with a lot of luck in our isolation, and a lot of help form established countries. In fact, if it weren't for other countries helping us in the Rev. war, we wouldn't even BE here. So don't give me any bullshit that "we did it all on our own" because we didn't.

BACK to the point, however, that doesn't change the fact that we CURRENTLY are bitchslapping other countries with idiotic tarriffs because stupid people can't run their businesses effectively. Steel is a perfect example. Whine all they like, the steel giants are in about as much disarray as they can possibly be without becoming a totally anarchist system. The solution to this grossly mismanaged mess? Why, impose penalties on imported steel so that those folks from other countries who actually have a handle on things and run their businesses the way we ran ours 100 years ago can't reasonably expect to sell in our country. Yea, great. The moral of this story, kids, is that as long as you scratch the politicians' backs, they'll keep those pesky up and comers who are doing a better job of things off yours.

Whether you want to admit it or not, it's true. Same goes for mediocre IT jobs, farming, and lots of heavy industry. We can't do it at the same price and quality as others, so we lobby to keep the others from doing it at all. Our predecessors did work awfully damn hard to pull us up to where we are now (often at the expense of our own workers, mind you...), but large sectors of modern business is just flinging shit at the people trying to knock us off our perch rather than continuing to climb. We will eventually pay for that, of course. You'd do well to not defend that sort of idiotic mentality and actually STRIVE to be better instead.

Re:just say NO to the UN

[the_mad_poster]

that our whole notion of IP us unfair, and we should be giving out the fruits of our work for free. I disagree. Moreover, if they don't like the price, they should invent their own. Stop mucking with natural selection. We need it.

Funny that you think we should be able to impose OUR version of IP but not accept theirs. You want to sell in THEIR country, you play by THEIR rules. Nobody says you have to go sell anything you make in Asia - a region that, largely, finds it perfectly acceptable to duplicate others' works whether patented, copyrighted, or otherwise. Just because you WANT to sell something somewhere else doesn't mean you get to impose your views. If they want to accept these views, they will. It may work out nicely to threaten them with sanctions and penalties now to get them to sign things they don't want to, but, again, we're not going to be in that position forever, so it's not real bright to go about abusing people who may well be more powerful than you in the future. Incidentally, WE'RE the ones "mucking with natural selection" since we're preventing people from doing what comes naturally - copying something they need or want. Of course, I suppose your suggestion about "natural selection" could be far more sinister, but I'm hoping not.

Don't like the current patent laws and time periods? Work to change them, but meanwhile leave alone those who are playing by the rules and making money. Profit != evil, you know.

Nobody said profit is evil. However, people aren't "playing by the rules" on this point, they're buying rules that suit their own greedy ends. If that's how you think things should be, fine. You'll get your knife in the back eventually and then we'll see how you like it when nobody comes to help you. I'll not discuss the point further because that's a whole new issue about big business in bed with corrupt officials.

Religion. Duh.

Nice to know you really DON'T have any clue what happens outside U.S. borders. Show me where the actual definition of "terrorist" requires a person to have any connection at all to religion and I'll shut up and concede the entire discussion to you.

Re:just say NO to the UN

[the_mad_poster]

You're an idiot. I'd be more respectful of your lack of knowledge on the subject, but, apparently, you're posting AC becuase you're an idiot. So, you're an idiot.

The "root" of their hatred goes back a millenium. "They" - these Muslim terrorists that you are mistakenly assuming make up all terrorists on earth, have been at war with Western cultures since the Crusades began in 1095 when Pope Urban got tired of Christian infighting, as it were, and redirected masses of Christian crusaders at Turkish Muslims.

Oops! The truth hurts, doesn't it? Christians, not some dirty Muslims, started this mess 1000 years ago.

Amusingly (or, frighteningly) enough, Pope Urban offered a "Papal Indulgence" to those who participated in the assault. That's right! Kill a dirty Muslim and you're assured a place in heaven! Sound familiar? Beyond that, they had an interesting battle cry:

Dieu li volt!

God wills it!

Gee, does that sound like anyone you've seen on tapes running on CNN for the last 2 years?

Of course, now that I'm done thoroughly thrashing your idiotic post on that front, I'll have to point out that large numbers of terrorists are not Muslim. Arguably, in fact, the United States has engaged in numerous terrorist activities including, by a minor interpretative effort of the term "terrorism", the "Shock and Awe" campaign used in Iraq. Though many terrorists are Muslims, by no means would you be doing justice to people who try to fight them to stupidly and stubbornly assume that they all are as you are seemingly hinting at.

Maybe you ought to get your terminology and your history straight before you post stupid bullshit like that again.

Re:just say NO to the UN

[randyest]

How ironic that YOU, of all people, should talk about missing the point.

You need to look up the definition of irony because this is not it.

Nobody is talking about how we got here, but, bear in mind, we got here with a lot of luck in our isolation, and a lot of help form established countries. In fact, if it weren't for other countries helping us in the Rev. war, we wouldn't even BE here. So don't give me any bullshit that "we did it all on our own" because we didn't.

Bullshit again. You have no possible way to know what would or would not have happened with differing levels of outside support. I'd argue that we'd have made it with no one, though I wouldn't be such a pompous bulshitter as to claim I know that for sure. Moreover, if we got some help, maybe we were clever or persistent enough to make it happen. We still did it.

BACK to the point, however, that doesn't change the fact that we CURRENTLY are bitchslapping other countries with idiotic tarriffs because stupid people can't run their businesses effectively. Steel is a perfect example. Whine all they like, the steel giants are in about as much disarray as they can possibly be without becoming a totally anarchist system. The solution to this grossly mismanaged mess? Why, impose penalties on imported steel so that those folks from other countries who actually have a handle on things and run their businesses the way we ran ours 100 years ago can't reasonably expect to sell in our country. Yea, great. The moral of this story, kids, is that as long as you scratch the politicians' backs, they'll keep those pesky up and comers who are doing a better job of things off yours.

The real moral of this story is that you're clueless on this one. Note that the tarriffs in question were imposed on a "total of 20 countries accused of selling cold-rolled steel products below the fair market value or the cost of production." Note that dumping, as this is called, is illegal for any product, and a tarriff is a perfectly reasonable way to respond. No one cries about the anti-dumping rules and tarriffs imposed on imported semiconductors, which has been going on just as long. There's something else at work here, and that something is US mfg'ers wanting to use the cheapest steel they can find (dumped or not). Maybe good, maybe bad, but your take is wholly off-base.

Whether you want to admit it or not, it's true.

Riight. Because you say so. Back it up or STFU.

Same goes for mediocre IT jobs, farming, and lots of heavy industry. We can't do it at the same price and quality as others, so we lobby to keep the others from doing it at all.

We do? Like for instance who when and how?

Our predecessors did work awfully damn hard to pull us up to where we are now (often at the expense of our own workers, mind you...), but large sectors of modern business is just flinging shit at the people trying to knock us off our perch rather than continuing to climb. We will eventually pay for that, of course. You'd do well to not defend that sort of idiotic mentality and actually STRIVE to be better instead.

You're not making any sense. Give me some facts instead of all these bullshit empty metaphors and I'll address them one-by-one with facts of my own. I anxiously await your vain attempt.

Workshop on Free Software, Free Society

[Anonymous Coward]

The most promising and interesting for us is the thematic Working Group (WG) dealing with Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks (P.C.T) and related issues, within the framework of the Civil Society.

See the website of this group at http://www.wsis-pct.org/

The Working Group is holding a workshop "Free Software, Free Society" with a group of top speakers, including Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU Project, and Lawrence Lessig.

Lesseg and RMS will be there, and so will I

[Hesperus]

I'm a programmer working at the W.H.O., which is just down the road from the exibition hall, so I've been looking at the schedule to see what events might be interesting or useful to attend.

Looks like a lot of local linux users (see G.U.L.L) are planning to attend at least the panel with Larry Lessig and RMS on Wednesday. RMS is also speaking on Thursday.

Re:1998 called...

[syrinx]

...and while they were on the phone, they wanted your joke back, too.

Digital solidarity fund?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do developing nations need the Internet?

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse...

By definition maybe what they really need is heavy infrastructure development?

Giving bushmen WWW access isn't going to help any nation develop.

Re:Digital solidarity fund?

[elf-fire]

They need it because they need access to information, and the ability to learn. Many examples exist! Fishermen in India using the Net to find the best place to sell their fish, instead of being dependent on one local business-man, to name just one! Give developing nations the possibility to develop themselves, and most of them will! Choose one for your next holiday destination, if you are still in doubt.

Re:Digital solidarity fund?

[Artifakt]

The bushmen are in Australia, which last I looked has pretty good net access. Most bushmen with net access use wireless, of course, so that it doesn't compromise their nomadic lifestyle. There's not much point in talking about "giving" them access, as, as a group, they have their own funds, which the Australian government is pretty much constrained to use as the bushmen decide.

There are really three classes here - the industrial nations, the developing nations, and the not developing nations. The "truly stagnant, not going anywhere except repetitious famine and civil war nations" won't really benefit from the internet, which I gather is your point. Some of them won't benefit from anything. They won't get basic industries, because they are destroying their existing infrastructure at a frightening pace, and no one from outside will build a factory where the roads are vanshing. Some are borderline failures, which don't need public net access until they get a literacy rate of 10% or so, or at least a small middle class. For some it's not even industrial development they need, until they get agricultural practices such as "slash and burn" or "grow something illegal and don't pay taxes" under better control.

One reason developing nations can benefit from the net is they are trying to leapfrog over some parts of industrialization, with some success. For example, many of these countries don't want to run copper phone line outside their major cities. Towers and repeaters actually look cheaper, but if they're going to put those up, might as well bundle some form of net access with them.
Full rural electrification is expensive, but dishes and solar power let a government broadcast news or educational programming to the rural community centers. They let it tie those rural communities together enough to hold voting, and an open political process is probably worth at least as much as technic infrastructure in improving a nation. Again, if there's unused bandwidth in those dish arrays, might as well give some people net access with it.

Re:Digital solidarity fund?

[Angostura]

Absolutely. And lets keep out of public libraries too. Damn poor people

Re:Digital solidarity fund?

[cranos]

The bushmen are in Australia, which last I looked has pretty good net access. Most bushmen with net access use wireless, of course, so that it doesn't compromise their nomadic lifestyle. There's not much point in talking about "giving" them access, as, as a group, they have their own funds, which the Australian government is pretty much constrained to use as the bushmen decide.

Ummm no, the Bushmen live in South Africa and neighbouring countries. The natives of australia are referred to collectively as Aboriginals while individual tribal groups retain their own names such as the Koori. As for Internet access, most of the Aboriginal groups who live in the deep bush are more worried about health and employment.

Re:Digital solidarity fund?

[FreckledGruntBuggly]

Access to information and communications is one of the major enablers of development, for a number of reasons:
1) You get a chance to sell your produce to a much wider market, not just the local merchant who pays a pittance. You can also find out how much profit he is making on the deal.
2) You get access to education, not least on health and your own rights.
3) You get a chance to observe and participate in democracy, and see what the wider world is saying about the government who put all the posters up in your village demanding your votes
4) You get a chance to report local corruption, crime and abuses to those who can make a difference, whether in your own national government, the wider world, or the free press.
5) Perhaps the most important point, you can begin to feel connected to the world around you, read news and books, establish personal relationships, build spiritual connections, and many other things, and start to feel as if you have some control over your own destiny.

These are all things taken for granted in the western world, but in the poorest places this is like water in a desert. And its got to be cheaper to put an Internet terminal in each village than a UN or Red Cross aid worker (though they are needed as well).

In my opinion, some level of access to telecommunications (of which the Internet is only one part) should be recognised as a basic human right. The work of the ITU in developing this access may be unsung, but will reap benefits for many years to come.

Re:Digital solidarity fund?

[ElderKorean]

Have you been to any developing countries and spent time out in the sticks?

Education is often only primary school (6 years), if at all.
People who can read are useful as they can read the books that are in the school library (if there is one) about things like crop-rotation, medicine, how to build a long-drop, nutrition, malaria, sanitation, building, history. These books are often years out of date too.

Having internet access means that the people have up to date information about all these things, and
- can also e-mail their children who had to go off to the far away city to get a decent education.
- contact aid agencies with current information.
- should we plant vanilla, coffee, or rice this year, and where can we sell it?
- where to sell these woven baskets, sleeping mats, tapa cloths, beads, and carvings - that tourists go ape over, but we throw away when we've finished with them :-)
- learn new skills, read, learn, communicate.
- bypass the middle man.

There are many reasons.

Remember that the electricity is often only there for a few hours a day when the generator is running, provided that there is also petrol.

God knows about that the times I've spent in remote parts of PNG; seen something that was broken, and thought to myself - I'm sure there are better ways to do this, must remember to check it out when I get home.

They might not want all the trappings of modern living. I'm content with cold showers in the water that comes from the creek. OK so it has to be filtered and purified before you can drink it. The food is nice if a bit bland. The people are wonderful. Don't need labour saving devices for every single thing - would make us all fat slobs - IT Geeks!!

A few disjointed thoughts, but covers most I think.

Re:Digital solidarity fund?

[Artifakt]

Oh, those bushmen - The UN doesn't recognize the african "bushmen" as a separate political entity vis-a-vis the current South African government (and the same situation goes for the smaller numbers to the north of SA, i.e. Zimbabwe). Any legislative control or funding from the UN would therefore be funneled through South Africa and other recognized nations.
Debate over whether a country that has developed atomic weapons needs to modernize further before expanding internet access, for all their other problems, seems pretty silly, doesn't it?
The UN _has_ issued non-binding resolutions on the treatment of Au. abo's, ergo making them possibly relevant to the original message.
Reference to the Austrailian aboriginals as bushmen is often considered both archaic and derogatory. Guess what, the same applies to the African ones. I used the term in response to a post where it was used first. If you find it inappropriate for me, might I ask if you found it equally inapproprate from that poster?
Tell you what, next time, I will just leap to a conclusion and call the poster a racist a**hole, rather than try to reply with some subtlty, or repect for a legitimate question even if the poster phrased it in a questionable manner. Sound's to me like you're playing "Let's you and him fight".
By the way, your last sentence is exactly what I was strongly implying. Nice to see it whizzed right by you. (And I was worried about maybe making it too blunt and sounding like I was preaching).

Re:Digital solidarity fund?

[cranos]

A bit touchy are we, I was correcting your mistake in referring to the natives of Australia as Bushmen. At no time has the term Bushmen been used to describe just Aboriginals, instead it is a term to describe any person who lives deep in the bush.

Where the hell did the Nukes reference come into it?

And last but no least your reference to Aboriginals as "abo's" is one of the most offensive terms you can use. It's like calling an African American "boy".

Re:Digital solidarity fund?

[Artifakt]

The word bushmen, particularly as the original poster used it, is also widely considered to be one of the most offensive terms around. While it might not be as offensive in some other contexts, the implication that all the inhabitants of the developing countries can be characterized as bushmen would offend many people indeed. Your own use of the term in response is not exactly a shining counter-example, as is your electing not to address how your use may correspond to or contrast with that of the first post in this chain despite my asking you about it.
I am sorry I descended to using a term such as "abo". It was a misguided effort to make a point (the more misguided since I thought it was percieved as patronizing, but not that much more offensive than some other terms. It's been a while since I was in Australia, and evidently it's moved up the list).
Since you either have no idea that a comment about the residents of the developing nations being bushmen might give similar offense, or did not bother to read the whole thread before you singled out my post, I thought I might give you an example of how you can, and doubtless will, be interpreted. Regrettably, I'm sure it did more harm than good.

The "Nuke's" reference seems rather straightforward to me. The First poster was writing about how it made no sense to give bushmen assistence in getting connected to the internet instead of building a national infrastructure.
If he meant the African bushmen, then he meant mostly residents of South Africa. South Africa demonstrated that they had the ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon over 15 years ago. That surely requires an industrial society. The people he was calling bushmen thus mostly live in a country that already surely has the infrastructure he was advocating. (Whether they are sharing in it on a more local level or not). Given the collapse of apartheid, the legal status of these people is citizens of one of the most industrialized nations of the African continent.
If HE meant the Australian aboriginals, then again, last I looked Australia had an industrial infrastructure.
If he meant other bushmen somewhere, he'll have to specify whom he's fitting into that nomenclature, as I genuinely don't follow his point. If he's characterizing the inhabitants of such "third world" nations as Thailand, Bosnia, or Chile as bushmen, HE's the one to clarify what he means.
Rather than take offense at the way the first poster phrased his question, I chose to answer it as best I could, in particular because, stripped of the more loaded words, it was a genuine rational arguement for a position many hold without being particularly racist, but one with which I don't agree. If you're going to insist on
taking offense when I use one of his terms, then why did you not choose to take similar offense with the first poster?

Re:Digital solidarity fund?

[cranos]

I can only speak from experience but I have to tell you that yes Australia has a national infrastructure but it is mainly concentrated along the coast line. The interior is severely wanting when it comes to items such as reliable power and water, especially in these times of severe drought. I assume that South Africe would be the same, that is a large industrial base concentrated in small areas while the rest is mainly rural to wilderness.

With regards to the "Nukes" both India and Pakistan are in possession of nuclear weapons but you cannot say in all honesty that their populations are enjoying the benefits of a fully industrialised nation.

I think both you and I have been caught out by a bit of cultural mis-understanding, here in Australia, the term Bushman is not considered offensive. It denotes those that live far out in the bush. Where you believe that Bushman is a derogatory term used to belittle those who are targeted by the phrase.

I have a lot of respect for Bushmen, those who choose to live with the hardship of the bush are tough and stubborn people, you have to be to deal with decade long droughts followed by massive flooding.

Re:Digital solidarity fund?

[Artifakt]

Well, actually, I believe that bushmen is one of those words that don't always appear in a derogatory context, and are often used in a way that doesn't insult anyone involved, but that it's quite possible to use it as a very serious insult.
I'm not saying you used it that way, either. I don't think the first poster to use it meant it as an insult, so much as a shorthand for a more complex idea, but I'm sure some people read it as one.
For example, Indonesia counts as a third world or developing nation. I suspect that most indonesians would be insulted to be called bushmen, and most African bushmen would be equally insulted to be compared to the Indonesians. Many American blacks would be insulted by a remark that the third world countries consisted of bushmen, not because some don't, at least in part, but because being a developing nation is hardly confined to ones with a large black population.
I don't think the African bushmen are enjoying all the advantages of industrialization in South Africa, or even the lesser amount in Zimbabwe, and as you point out, there are plenty of other examples such as India and Pakistan that are in the same pickle. I do think that efforts to provide such things as internet access to these populations depends on what their sovereign government allows or cooperates with more than any other factor.
That's one of the reasons I originally mentioned Australia, by the way. South Africa (and the majority of African nations) would tell any international group wanting to facilitate net access for bushmen that they would have to put all monies in a government account, talk to the bushmen's representitives only through the government, and do absolutely everything the government's way. There would end up being no international progam, just an international grant to a national program. That opinion is based on how they have dealt with such things in the UN in the recent past.
So when someone posts about international programs assisting bushmen, I'm pointing out that if we take him litterally, instead of figuratively, (and in the process treating his use of "bushmen" as a likely insult), he's effectively talking about only the Australian bushmen. The Australian legal system allows an international organization to contract directly with bushmen or anyone else, to keep their funds in an offshore bank rather than a government account, and other such open practices.

The Marxist Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

"Spam could be outlawed once and for all worldwide, with harsh penalties for violation."

Should we apply Marxist solutions: gulags (Stalin), death farms (Cambodia) or rape camps (Serbia)?

"An international agreement of standards for content could bring freedom of information to places where there is a lack of information"

Yes. We know that government control always makes things more free!

"Centralized taxation..."

Yes. The greedy ruling class must get a cut!

"Elimination of various objectively hateful websites from the internet, e.g., holocaust denial, neo-nazis, gun merchants"

And, of course, left-wing hate sites (MLM, neo-soviets) all remain uncensored.

Re:The Marxist Solution

[cfuse]

And, of course, left-wing hate sites (MLM, neo-soviets) all remain uncensored.

Since when is Amway a hate site?

Fighting spam cleverly.

[Savage-Rabbit]

This guy has had a deliciously evil series of inspriations. My favorite is the generator that traps a spambot in an (almost) infinite loop and feeds it upto 26^49 totally bogus E-Mail addresses. An even more evil thing to do would be to bounce the spambots through a large network of pages on many different sites carrying only a relatively small number of bogus addresses each. That would make this stunt alot harder for the spammer to detect. This writing more of these traps would make a cool hobby....

Dupe?

[da3dAlus]

Possible dupe (from Friday), but interesting nonetheless.
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/12/05/1447255.shtml ?tid=95

Re:Dupe?

[NickFitz]

Which was itself a dupe.

WSIS has nothing to do with society.

[Wolfbone]

I notice that none of the articles mentioned the opposition to the corrupt way the WSIS has banned various interest groups and fudged their Declaration of Principles and Action Plan so as not to offend the mighty corporate interests who don't like the ideas of freedom of information and basic human rights.

This summit is a betrayal of it's original ideals, and especially of the World's poor. Various groups are intending to strongly oppose this travesty; there is more information and here.

Re:WSIS has nothing to do with society.

[bnavarro]

This summit is a betrayal of it's original ideals, and especially of the World's poor.

I'm sorry, but Free Internet For The Poor(tm) != cure for world poverty. When will people realize that the #1 root cause of poverty on a worldwide scale is corrupt despotic governments? So long as WSIS panders to the likes if Infidel Castro (who attended the summit in person), there will be no solution to poverty that univeral Internet access will solve. If the U.N. was serious about enacting their "Millenium Declaration" to eliminate world poverty, they should start bitchslapping governments that force their population into poverty. But no, they have to be "inclusive", so these asswipes still get their say, and no "solution" for global poverty will ever exist.

Re:WSIS has nothing to do with society.

[Wolfbone]

No need to apologise; the WSIS isn't an attempt at a 'cure for world poverty' nor is it a forum for the castigation of the World's dictators and tyrants. It's about information technology and the internet, not medicine, agriculture, global climate or peacekeeping. What it should be about is ensuring freedom of access to information like online educational resources and medical information and free and open technologies and standards that can be employed by the poor to help themselves. Not (as it now seems to be) about how best the internet and information technology can be regulated, controlled and deployed in the interest of global software manufacturers and digital publishers, concerned not with leveraging I.T. to the benefit of the poor but only with the market opportunities developing nations represent. If you can't read or write and your village teacher can't afford the books and resources that are taken for granted in the west you'll probably stay that way. If the whole world is forced to bend to the will of the overreaching greed of entrenched proprietary interest groups and the proponents of laws like the DMCA, the EUCD, DRM etc, the effect will likely be a stagnatory one on the growth of education and technological uptake in countries whose populations cannot afford the high prices demanded of them.

Not every poor country is poor because of the ravages of despotic government; there are many countries that are poor because of unfair trade conditions and economic policies imposed on them by the likes of Western governments, the WTO and the IMF. It is as pointless to criticise the WSIS for failing to find a cure for poverty on the basis of the narrowness of it's remit as it is to criticise NASA for the lack of a cure for AIDS or malaria.

Re:WSIS has nothing to do with society.

[bnavarro]

There is a better article here that shows that WSIS is mandated to try to solve world poverty. To quote:

But here, in Paragraph 2, is the tricky part. Not only does the WSIS want information for all, it wants "to harness the potential of information: Promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger...

This is what I rant against. They want to use their agendas to promote the "Millenium Declaration", but yet leaders from despotic countries are scheduled to give speeches!

Nothing will ever get accomplished this way. Except maybe for the erosion of our 'Net rights, not only in the name of corporate interests, but in the name of despotic governments as well.

Re:WSIS has nothing to do with society.

[Wolfbone]

Yes, it does look ridiculously over ambitious, especially as they are going about it in exactly the wrong way. Given the nature of the U.N. I'd not normally worry too much about platforms being given to despots - it's pretty much inevitable and in the interests of diplomatic harmony. In this case however it does seem there has been excessive suppression - they even banned Reporters Sans Frontieres. What we both agree on I think is the whole process has been perverted by the way the internet and information technology is being abused by WSIS for purposes and ends other than those it has claimed to wish to promote and that may have damaging consequences for everyone.

Where is freedom of expression?

[rumblin'rabbit]

Under "What values should underlie the foundations of the information society", WSIS says this: "The universal human values of equality, and justice, democracy, solidarity, mutual tolerance, human dignity, economic progress, protection of the environment, and respect for diversity are the foundations for a truly inclusive global information society."

Where oh where is freedom of expression in all this? Or is that too much of a threat to the organizations sponsering this summit?

Re:Where is freedom of expression?

[R2.0]

"Where oh where is freedom of expression in all this?"

Probably one of those "penumbra" things.

Re:Where is freedom of expression?

[Afty0r]

Where oh where is freedom of expression in all this?

I think that's covered under:
mutual tolerance
and possibly:
respect for diversity

Re:Where is freedom of expression?

[Dravik]

There are no group of people who more oppose freedom of expression that those who trumpet "diversity" and "tolerance". For example there was a court case in the US where a school had a presentation about homosexuality billed as "diversity". Surprise, surprise, only approved points of view were allowed to be shown.

Fight for your freedom

[jdfox]

WSIS might sound like a boring bureaucratic exercise, but there's a strong chance that governments are going to walk away from it with new international agreements in their pockets to pass laws in their own countries restricting the free flow of information.

Quoting the "WSIS? We Seize!" press release:

'While the official agenda of this UN/ITU Summit talks about "free access to information", "the digital divide" and "equality of opportunities", in reality its doors are closed, its discussions exclusive and the agendas of those who attend it concealed. What's more, the right to demonstrate and protest has been suspended in Geneva at this time, as the usual parade of despots and tyrants fly in to Switzerland to define policy for their own citizens, and the rest of the world, based on the agendas of corporate multinationals, media conglomerates and infrastructure owners.

Geneva03 is a temporary network of groups and individuals set up to carry out agitational, educational and communications work during both the G8 and the WSIS. Geneva03 considers it critical to show, during such a display of media power and control, that independent groups and people have the ability to create their own media, to share media, self publish, build networks and communicate freely and autonomously. That's why we've titled our events during this time WSIS? WE SEIZE! We do not consider that negotiation and supplication before the altar of the UN will produce information autonomy for all. Instead, we are taking our autonomy now, using the means and technologies at our disposal: the Internet, peer to peer networks, Free and Open Source Software, community wireless infrastructures, pirate television and radio and streamed media. Beyond questions of communications technology, We Seize! seeks to open a wide-ranging discussion on the new social conditions that constitute today's world about which the WSIS has little or nothing to say: media concentration, expansive intellectual property regimes, casualised and immaterial labour and migration.

We insist that this urge to speak, to hear and be heard, is irrepressible. The Geneva03 group returns to Geneva following major attempts at repression during the G8 this year, in which the group were targetted by police whilst running an independent media centre. No charges were brought against the group, because - whatever the establishment would like us to believe - it is still lawful to freely express ourselves. We must, however, continue to exercise this ability, to expand and test it in diverse situations, if we are not to lose the freedom and potential that defines us as people.

Communication, language and information are essential to understanding both control and liberation in this new millenium. They are simultaneously the site of the most repressive and totalitarian suppression and disciplining we have seen since the 1950s and, we believe, the basis of a powerful, growing autonomous movement. Ultimately this movement must cut to the very heart of communication: for what we are able to articulate, we are able to create. We must speak of a new world without fear, and with all the creativity, energy and commitment we can find.'
(end quote)

If you want to know more, here are some useful links:

Good background article on Indymedia Global

WSIS? We Seize!

The World Forum on Communication Rights

Polimedia Lab

Civil Society news centre for the WSIS

Indymedia UK WSIS 2003 section

This worries me

[Bendebecker]

Let's face it, if we had a cent for every IQ point our leaders have, the sum total of our entire government wouldn't be enough to buy a happy meal at McDonald's. That being said, do we really want to trust these people with determining the best policies for the system???

Ground Rules. such as :

[nurb432]

New rules:

1 - No individual anonymity
2 - No free speech for individuals
3 - No national information sovereignty.
4 - Taxation to pay for enforcement of the new rules
5 - Jails to house all the new criminals.

Re:Ground Rules. such as :

[globalar]

"1 - No individual anonymity"
"2 - No free speech for individuals"

I am no political theorist, but I think that individual rights found a free society, physical or virtual. The very fact that there are no distinct laws on the Internet as a whole, anonymity is possible to an extent, free speech is rampant, etc. are all positive things (ultimately). I feel we have all benefited from this kind of freedom that really is not possible (currently) in the physical world.

Maybe we cannot have everything we want in a government or the UN, but the Internet seems a lot more ideal to myself as it is. Sure there are spammers, crackers, con-artists, and all sorts of bad things. But is regular society free of these? No, but on the Internet we can band together, share information, and fight these elements as a community. In our physical society, every one of our freedom's requires overhead to protect and is constantly threatened by the system itself. On the Internet, the system may not promote our freedom (I guess you could argue either way there), but it has few controls. What seems remarkable to me is that the Internet can still be friendly and even great - all without conventional government control.

I think the majority of people (anywhere in the world) have already made a lot compromises about their physical society and freedoms. I hate to think we ever really have to make similar ones in our virtual society. Its far from ideal, but its there and I think it has a lot to do with our future.

Nice non-sequitur.

[sulli]

And that has what, exactly, to do with the ITU's attempted (and probably failed before it starts) internet power grab?

Why don't we tell them what we think?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wired has a story about a huge screen that you'll be able to send messages to. Apparently it's within line of sight of Kofi Annan's hotel room, so if you want to sound off, why not drop him a text?

After RTFA, Some insights

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I read the Draft "Plan of Action" availible. It reads a lot like a polictical document. The scary part is the one about the un taking over control of the internet, but it mostly says that everyone should have access to the internet and it should be geared towards all languages and cultures.

Thats great, but I think the UN should be focused on oh I don't know .. giving starving people food and water. That seems like a higher priority than internet access. Furthermore, one of the questions in the Faq is "Will one language or culture takeover the information society?" The answer says that we should encourage people to provide content in all languages. First of all, I think Internet is already heavily US centric perhaps because it was originally its network. Secondly, that is a pipe dream just like everything else in the summit.

All the UN needs ....

[DesScorp]

All the UN needs to know about spam is right here. >:-)

Re:NOOOOO!!!!

[WildBeast]

The same guy who created the Freedom from pornograhy week and the same administration who's suing hundreds of people for obscenity charges? :)

Setting the record straight on Al Gore

[Anonymous Coward]

"Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.
Status: False"

Status: True. "Invent" and "Create" mean the same thing in the context.

"Origins: No, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way"

Yes, he did. He clearly took credit for its creation.

"but that he was responsible for helping to create the environment (in an economic and legislative sense) that fostered the development of the Internet."

You are making up things Gore did NOT say in the interview, and then making your argument based on that. However, in the interview, Gore said he created it.

See his quote:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet"

"To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean the same thing: If they mean the same thing, then why have the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet when he never used that word"

Because invent is a more commonly used word. It is a correct paraphrasing, however, and Gore looks to be a liar with either word.

"Any statement about the "creation" or "beginning" of the Internet is difficult to evaluate"

It is easy to evaluate. The Internet already existed before Gore got to Congress. Therefore, he could not create it.

"that one could claim helped bring the Internet into being,"

That claim is flat-out false, as much a lie as Gore's claim of inventing it. The Internet existed before Gore's involvement.

Re:"UN Control of Web Rejected"

[paiute]

Let's see - programmed by superior intelligence to repeat the same rhetoric over and over? Is it the doll or is it Ann herself?

Are you sure?

[Raven42rac]

Are you sure there are 192 nations participating, and not 192.168 nations? What about the 10.x or the 169.254 nations you insensitive clods?

Re:Are you sure?

[Tackhead]

> Are you sure there are 192 nations participating, and not 192.168 nations? What about the 10.x or the 169.254 nations you insensitive clods?

Someone call the WTO! I'm a 192.168 nation! And those bastards in the rest of the world have embargoed me from trading with anyone but 10.x and 169.254 nations! End the blockade now! To the firewalls, mes amis!

html

[loconet]

They should start by banning frontpage as a tool to create webpages. Yes that would mean they'll have to recode their official website as well

Moderators on crack?

[Rumagent]

Sorry, a UN managed internet would simply give certain 3rd world countries (and some European) a new means to bash or otherwise attempt to restrict prospering Western countries. It would advance anti-Jewish attitudes, probably going as far as to restrict Israel! China would be given free reign to threaten Tiawan and run ramshackle over tibet. Can you imagine what these nations would want to classify as SPAM?

This is insightful? I know a lot of people don't like the UN or Europe for that matter. But this is getting ridiculous.

Re:Moderators on crack?

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

have you even looked at the anti-semitic remarks coming from the U.N.?

Re:Moderators on crack?

[Rumagent]

No, so this is were you give me proof that the UN is anti-semitic.

Re:Moderators on crack?

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

What your reply is telling me is that you haven't even taken the time to look over recent U.N. mandates that take Israel to task for defending herself. You will not see any U.N. mandates regarding Palestinian homicide bombers for a reason - the majority of member states have anti-semitic representation.

I won't link you to any articles regarding this for a very simple reason. You spoke first. You didn't ask the original poster what he or she meant in regards to the U.N. having very anti-semitic undertones. Instead you just shot off a comment without any knowledge to back you up. You can easily Google some information for yourself. And, this is the final second I will waste on you - someone who obviously isn't here for intelligent discussion but would rather simply be a nay-sayer to whatever is posted.

Re:Moderators on crack?

[Rumagent]

I have. And criticism of israel is not anti-semitism.

I asked for proof, any proof, of the the U.N. being anti-semitic, and neither you or the parent have shown any.

And now, you ask me to prove your point!. Well, someone isn't interrested in "intelligent discussion" on that we can agree.

EOD

Run for cover

[JeanCretin]

World domination by unelected idiots. First, the International Criminal Court and now, this. Rather than being a forum for countries to resolve issues not resolvable directly, the UN is going to impose there view on all of us. I'd rather have George Bush in charge because he can be voted out!

no credibility...

[hakalugi]

"...Carlos Achiary, national director of Information Technology Argentina, said many governments are frustrated because the Internet is having a tremendous effect in their countries, but they have no place to submit their requests, complaints or suggestions...." /dev/null anyone?

I have family living in B.A. - I visited Arg. for a few weeks last November. After looking at miles of black and white marble columns and hand-worked wrought-iron that enclosed their WATER PROCESSING PLANT in B.A. - I felt no pity for the bureaucrats at this service arm who now cry poor. The unabashed "we are Euro, ergo better than the rest of [south] America, so let's have palacial water plants..." The whole place was shocking. (parts beautiful, yes) But the officials I met.... inept, corrupt, nepitistic, backwards - maybe they should get their house in order before looking to "suggest" some of their 'winning insight' to the rest of us.

(did you hear about the folks of B.A. suing a new (chilean owned) utility that, after months of written warnings removed the power-leacher-wires from the poles? Yep, they had the audacity to sue the company for cutting them off b/c they'd tapped in illegally. It's still in the courts, the folks there think "it is our right to have electricity" - just as it is this guys' "right" to have a say on riding coat-tails.)

build something, contribute, dont' back-street drive.

Internetacces at the conference

[NilsK]

Heise.de has an article about the interetaccess on this conference: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-08.12.03-00 6/ (in german). The main info: Internetaccess for participants on this conference will cost about 128Euro. Participants from the third world, already having problems to bring up the money to attend, might not be able to afford the Internetaccess on the "World Summit on the Information Society". An attendee from Bulgaria mentioned that in Bulgaria this is about the amount of money you have to live from ... for two months.

Nils

MOD PARENT UP!

[m0rphin3]

It's pretty damn insightful, and we need some counterweight to the paranoia.

Who grants authority to world bodies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I hear about another organization taking it upon themselves to do some global rule-making, I can't help wondering: from whence do these organizations derive their authority? I didn't vote for these people. I don't even know who they are.

Yes, I know. Sovereign nations have engaged in international diplomacy, treaty signing and the like since time immemorial. I still question the authority of those who would make rules without being elected.

Re:Who grants authority to world bodies?

[axxackall]

Typical ignorant American. No wonder people around the world hate Americans.

Well, there are other reasons as well. Iraqi people did not vote for any americans. They even did not know who they are. Until Americans bombed Iraqi people.

Re:Right...

[symbolic]

Just like our politicians refuse to do anything that isn't in the best interests of their constituency. Where there's a price, or the potential for substantive political gain, there's a way.

Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

Kyoto would exempt "developing" nations - so in effect dirty manufacturing would end up moving to those places even faster because it would be cheaper - it would basically make such places (which I have visited in my professional, albiet uneducated life) even more unpleasant to live in - is that what you want to do to those poor countries to make yourself feel like you've "done something"?

Kyoto would not exempt developing nations for the purpose of moving the polluting industries to these developing countries; Kyoto specifically states that pollution is a global problem that needs dealing with on a global scale. The exemption is made because of a) the costs of reducing pollution; developing nations simply can't afford it as long as they're in their developing stages; and b) fairness; the polluters should pay to get their mess cleaned up.The developed nations have mainly caused the problem and have the money to pay for cleaning up their own mess; some of these nations are now trying to deny their responsability in the most redicilous ways.

The ICC has already shown its true colors in attempting to charge various U.S. citizens for "warcrimes" in the U.S.-led action in Iraq - exactly to what advantage of the U.S. citizen is it if the U.S. would need to subjucate itself to such a body before taking actions it feels are necessary for its defense?

So since when is (offensively) invading a sovereign nation defence? Invasions are not defensive, what ever weaselwording ("pre-emptive strikes") they're wrapped in. If your army attacks a sovereign nation without you being attacked by their army first, you're the agressor.

What you state here comes down to an offender asking himself what good a criminal court does him. The court is there to make you behave, your personal advantage in it is it makes you a more civilized person/state; better fit to positively function in (global) society. The problem with some nations is they can't accept authority that might judge their actions as wrong, just like some offenders can't ("Judge, who are you to tell me what to do, for I'm stronger than you.")

Mother-May-I was a stupid children's game in the fist place - a sovereign nation certainly sholdn't play it.

If you're trying render global consensus meaningless, there will be global consensus in condemning you. There is just to many nukes and other dangerous stuff in the world to throw these moderating diplomatic structures overboard and fight it out.

Re:Let me respond

[cayenne8]

"Kyoto would not exempt developing nations for the purpose of moving the polluting industries to these developing countries; Kyoto specifically states that pollution is a global problem that needs dealing with on a global scale. The exemption is made because of a) the costs of reducing pollution; developing nations simply can't afford it as long as they're in their developing stages;"

And if this passes, what is to keep larger nations from setting up polluting factories in these developing nations? I think the point is...if they are exempted....then existing polluters will move there...and save the cost of running these businesses in the countries where they'd have to pay to clean up....I've heard nothing in Kyoto that prevents this.

"So since when is (offensively) invading a sovereign nation defence? Invasions are not defensive, what ever weaselwording ("pre-emptive strikes") they're wrapped in. If your army attacks a sovereign nation without you being attacked by their army first, you're the agressor. "

I'm not all that comfy with the supposed reasoning for the new aggression against Iraq. I feel that pre-emptive strikes weren't needed as a reason. The significant reason was that Iraq had NEVER fully complied with the treaties signed at the end of the first Gulf War. Period. They were given more than enough time and more than enough chances. If they had fully complied upfront with all inspections, and hadn't tried playing politics and cat and mouse with the world....that asshole saddam would still be in power. However, he did not comply with a treaty of surrender...in which case...the war was never over. If Germany had reneged on their surrender back in WWII...I can guarantee that the Allies would not have been so patient for years upon years....they'd have started the bombing virtually immediately. So, we didn't need any further reason since because he had not complied with the terms of surrender of Gulf War 1....the war was technically never over...

Re:Let me respond

[randyest]

Kyoto would not exempt developing nations for the purpose of moving the polluting industries to these developing countries;

....yet...

The exemption is made because of a) the costs of reducing pollution; developing nations simply can't afford it as long as they're in their developing stages; and b) fairness; the polluters should pay to get their mess cleaned up.

It doesn't matter why the exemptions were made, the fact remains that they were, and some people think that makes it stupid and decidedly unfair, despite your claim that it is in the interest of fairness.

So since when is (offensively) invading a sovereign nation defence?

Since September 11, 2001. Welcome to the next phase. The sleeping giant was awakened again, and as the former emperor of Japan said (I'm paraphrasing): "Are you nuts!? Boy are you in biiiig trouble now ..."

Re:Let me respond

[Matrix272]

If your army attacks a sovereign nation without you being attacked by their army first, you're the agressor.

Without taking one side or another, may I suggest that if I wanted to harm a sovereign nation without me being held accountable in a "war-crime court", I'd just hire some mercenaries to do the damage over and over again, then deny any knowledge of it. However, I'm also curious when Saddam Hussein will be brought to trial for his decades of torture and warcrimes against Kuwait in 1991.

The problem with some nations is they can't accept authority that might judge their actions as wrong, just like some offenders can't.

And why, exactly, does the UN get to state what the USA should and should not do? There are 10 members in the Security Counsel, right? Why should 7 of them dictate what the other 3 do (for instance)? Because it's a "consensus"? What if a group of 6 countries get together and decide that the world would be better off without the other 4? Are the other 4 supposed to roll over and die, just because it's a "consensus"? Or would you permit them to fight for their survival?

The United Nations is worthless, and has been for years. Their resolutions aren't followed, which makes them ineffective in enacting any global changes, and if they can't enact any global changes, the debating is just wasting time. It's already been proven that if someone defies the UN, nothing will happen.

If you're trying render global consensus meaningless, there will be global consensus in condemning you.

Exactly. The UN has tried to render global consensus meaningful, but lacked the ability to follow through with any of its decisions. Thus, there is now a growing consensus of the belief that the UN is meaningless.

There is just to many nukes and other dangerous stuff in the world to throw these moderating diplomatic structures overboard and fight it out.

If there are so many nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and if they're so easy to use (as you're implying... apparently you think that without the UN, everyone would just light the fuse and have it out), why let people like Saddam Hussein stay in power? The man murdered over a million people in his own country, using chemical weapons. What possible GOOD could come from him staying in power? What possible BAD could come from him staying in power? The worst-case scenario is that he has a bad day sometime, and uses all his weapons and kills over a billion people by feeding some of his biological weaponry into the water supply, or using his chemical weapons in India or China or something. The worst-case scenario if he is expelled from power is he hides his weapons and waits for a time to use them, hoping that the "good" guys won't get him first, with the possibility that the "good" guys find the weapons first, and he never gets the chance. I'd rather take option #2.

Re:Let me respond

[m0rphin3]

The United Nations is worthless, and has been for years. Their resolutions aren't followed, which makes them ineffective in enacting any global changes, and if they can't enact any global changes, the debating is just wasting time. It's already been proven that if someone defies the UN, nothing will happen.

A bit of circular reasoning here? The US does not follow UN resolutions, and therefore the US can say that UN is worthless? They are ineffective in enacting global resolutions only so long as the US ignores those resolutions and don't pay their share to the UN.

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

And if this passes, what is to keep larger nations from setting up polluting factories in these developing nations? I think the point is...if they are exempted....then existing polluters will move there...and save the cost of running these businesses in the countries where they'd have to pay to clean up....I've heard nothing in Kyoto that prevents this.

The simple fact that no nation in the world is going to allow a substantial part of its production capacity to move abroad. Even though it's dirty business, heavy industry is vital to the economies of our developed nations. And even if we exported our heavy industry to developing countries, they would develop quicker, meaning they would have to follow stricter norms.

The significant reason was that Iraq had NEVER fully complied with the treaties signed at the end of the first Gulf War. Period.

Well, the funny thing is the UN dictated those treaties, and the UN itself seemed to think Iraq was in compliance enough not to invade.

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

It doesn't matter why the exemptions were made, the fact remains that they were, and some people think that makes it stupid and decidedly unfair, despite your claim that it is in the interest of fairness.

What kind of industrial pollution did a nation like Burkina Faso cause in the last centuries? How much pullution does a 3th world nation like that produce today? So why should we treat them the same way like nations that have been polluting for centuries at a much larger scale, and continue to do so?

Since September 11, 2001. Welcome to the next phase. The sleeping giant was awakened again, and as the former emperor of Japan said (I'm paraphrasing): "Are you nuts!? Boy are you in biiiig trouble now ..."

Sigh. That still doesn't make it right now, does it? Iraq never directly attacked the US, so until the US comes with some damn hard evidence that Iraq was framing strikes against US territory, they'll stay the agressors in this.

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

And why, exactly, does the UN get to state what the USA should and should not do?

Because it was the US itself which (rightly) saw the need for a multigovernmental organisation to avoid (large-scale) wars after WWII; and subsequently co-founded the UN. So the UN has authority over the US because the US gave it that authority; not only by founding it but by signing various treaties also.

There are 10 members in the Security Counsel, right? Why should 7 of them dictate what the other 3 do (for instance)? Because it's a "consensus"? What if a group of 6 countries get together and decide that the world would be better off without the other 4? Are the other 4 supposed to roll over and die, just because it's a "consensus"? Or would you permit them to fight for their survival?

Do you have even the slightest idea about international law? What you are saying here is akin to "What if the US government desides to extradite all colored people?"

The man murdered over a million people in his own country, using chemical weapons. What possible GOOD could come from him staying in power?

1) Those figures are getting higher and higher. Perhaps it would be wise to wait until the dust settles until we make a judgement about how many people he got killed?

2) Iraq is a sovereign nation, just like the US. A nation has no right to mingle in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation. Just as the French can't do a regime change in the US because Bush is a tool, the US can't do regime change in Iraq because Saddam is the devil in person. As long as Saddam and Bush do their stuff on their own territory, another nation can't do anything about it. Simple, isn't it?

Re:Let me respond

[cayenne8]

"The simple fact that no nation in the world is going to allow a substantial part of its production capacity to move abroad. Even though it's dirty business, heavy industry is vital to the economies of our developed nations. And even if we exported our heavy industry to developing countries, they would develop quicker, meaning they would have to follow stricter norms. "

Ahh...but, our companies are already moving abroad...to cheaper labor. Manufacturing is moving out of the US to cheap labor markets...in much the same way we are outsourcing our IT. The US based companies still rake in the money...but, can move the actual polluting factories to where the standards are relaxed..and exploit the cheap labor....

I really don't see anything Kyoto can do to stop, what I do believe is already happening now. It may only exacerbate the problem...

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

Ahh...but, our companies are already moving abroad...to cheaper labor.

Right, this process is called capitalism. When our governments think it has caused enough unemployment and economical damage (which follows from growing unemployment), they'll do the socialist, anti-liberal thing: protect their markets and jobs.

Capitalism doesn't work either for strategicly important industies like steel, food, arms, etc. Governments simply aren't going to allow those to move abroad or close down; they'll disown and make them into government property if it can't be done otherwise.

Re:Let me respond

[randyest]

So why should we treat [nations that are underdeveloped, and therefore pollute less] the same way like nations that have been polluting for centuries at a much larger scale, and continue to do so?

Huh? If Burkina Faso doesn't cause significant pollution, why would they (or you) have a problem with holding them to the same rules as everyone else. What are you arguing here?

In any case, the countries with cushy exemptions in Kyoto I'm talking about are China and India. I suppose you're going to tell me that neither pollutes, or that China is not projected to exceed US emissions in a few years? But oh no, they're not as well off as the US, so they should be exempt from the rules, right? Bah.

Anyway, all countries should be held to the same environmental standards for the same reason that African Americans should not be paid reparations for the historical enslavement of their ancestors -- it's fair. You can't hold an entire population accountable for what some ancestors might have done, else you end up in an infinite regress of trying to correct every wrong every done throughout history. If we did this, we couldn't even stop at giving the US to Native Americans, we'd have to find a few living Sumerians and just give everything to them. Do you see yet why is silly to try to punish a nation today for mistakes that are hundreds of years old?

Or, if you don't see the problem there, note that by vilifying an entire population for long past acts, you end up with a pissed-off populace that's tired of paying the price for thier great-great-great-grandpappy's "badness", which opens the door to Hitler-esque demagogues who can take advantage of the situation and rally insane nationalism to the great detriment of all, as we have seen before. See it yet?

Or look at it this way: it's easier to do it right to begin with than fight inertia and retrofit the right way later on.

One of those has got to help jar the rocks out of your head and help you see past your hatred of the US long enough to understand why some people think your arguments are not just wrong, but stupid and annoying.

Sigh. That still doesn't make it right now, does it?

Yes it does. That was my point.

Iraq never directly attacked the US,

So? Direct attack may be where you draw your line and decide defend yourself, but it's not mine, nor is is America's, as you can see. Fact is the nutcake regime there helped those who attached the US. That's just as bad as a direct attack (worse, in many ways).

so until the US comes with some damn hard evidence that Iraq was framing strikes against US territory, they'll stay the agressors in this.

Bullshit. All it takes is for us to convince ourselves that they either helped or knew about and failed to hinder those fuckers that flew planes into the WTC, which we've done to my satisfaction (and most others' as well).

Re:Let me respond

[fingusernames]

Or, maybe they'll enact steel tariffs to attempt to protect that strategically important industry... Hmmmm, I wonder what brilliant politician will attempt to do that?

Larry

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

Huh? If Burkina Faso doesn't cause significant pollution, why would they (or you) have a problem with holding them to the same rules as everyone else. What are you arguing here?

Because the Kyoto treaty is about pollution reduction. If you sign the treaty, you basically agree to reduce your CO2 emission by about 6% from 2008 to 2012. Because states like these have almost no industry, most of their CO2 is emitted by motorized transport, cooking fires and stuff like that. So if you want to take one of the ten cars they own over there (hyperbole of couse) off the road, you'll not reduce much pollution, but you hamper the developement of those states significantly.

In any case, the countries with cushy exemptions in Kyoto I'm talking about are China and India. I suppose you're going to tell me that neither pollutes, or that China is not projected to exceed US emissions in a few years? But oh no, they're not as well off as the US, so they should be exempt from the rules, right? Bah.

I suggest you take a trip to India, Mexico or China and really see how common people live there, how their children die of common deseases easily cureable over here, or how disasters like floods or famine kill thousands and thousands because of poor infrastructure. 9/11 Becomes pale in comparison to the number of people and especially young children dying because of poverty in those countries every week.

I know it's easy to rule the world from behind your tv or computer screen, but I can tell you from personal experience that as soon as you witness the suffering of those people from up close, "fairness" gets new a whole new meaning. So while I think it is nescesary to reduce emssions for the future welbeing of all of us, I also know that cutting down the developing industies over there would cause suffering and death for many right now.

Bullshit. All it takes is for us to convince ourselves that they either helped or knew about and failed to hinder those fuckers that flew planes into the WTC, which we've done to my satisfaction (and most others' as well).

What? Did I miss something? Did somebody -anybody- actually prove the Iraqi government knew about 9/11? Show me, please link to the hard evidence (hard evidence is not "undisclosed sources"). All I heard was that Bush publicly admitted there is no evidence Iraq had anything to do with it (and strangely enough I can't find a linkable story in the US media anymore, where it was largely ignored). Please don't try to bullshit me.

Re:Let me respond

[fingusernames]

Kyoto is a funny thing... large polluters get a certain amount they can pollute. Developing nations are exempt to a level. So, large polluting nations would assuredly out-source to off-shore sub-contractors as much as possible. Those nations would be exempt, to a point. But, the large polluter, who now pollutes less, can simply sell the credits they have to the now excessively polluting nations, and then when those nations start becoming gross polluters beyond the savior of credits, we can attempt to rein them in... and listen to the screaming. It would be amusing.

Regarding Iraq, the logic is rather simple. There were hostilities, led by the United States and a coalition under the grant of authorization of the United Nations. Once Iraq was driven from Kuwait, those hostilities were voluntarily suspended, and Iraq signed an armistice agreement. Once Iraq met certain requirements, the hostilities would be formally ended. Those requirements were never met, and Iraq ended all pretext of attempting to meet them to the satisfaction of the side which granted the armistice. Note, the hostilities as originally authorized never ended, as demonstrated by the continuing hostilities enforcing the "no-fly" zones. The United States, legally speaking, merely decided that the armistice terms had been violated, and therefore the comprehensive hostilities were begun again. I think that "legally" this all hinges on whether the U.N. ever took the authorization away from the U.S. coalition, as granted back in 1991, to wage war against Iraq. Did the armistice agreement permit the United States to decide whether the armistice terms were being met? My understanding is that the armistice agreement was rather informal, and the U.N. authorization was never withdrawn. I'd *love* to see some documentary evidence attesting to one side or the other on this issue.

But back in the real world... nations have conflicts. We have created a world today where the large majority are allegedly "solved" without violence. But that has created a world averse to the use of violence, in which some naively believe that everybody will play nice in the end when their "viewpoints" are "respected" leading to "consensus." It seems that the first priority is avoid conflict and bloodshed, not to get rid of heinous leaders. Sometimes, negotiations don't work, one side doesn't blink, diplomacy goes nowhere, and a line in the sand has to be drawn, and it has to be enforced. Iraq crossed that line, it was redrawn, they crossed it again, and so on for over a damn decade, because everybody was too timid to actually enforce it. Someday, somebody had to enforce that line, and it happened to be a Republican president who rubs people the wrong way and who pissed off a bunch of Democrats when he got elected in a hotly contested race. But if not him, it would have been somebody. That, or the U.N. would just cave in and demonstrate that its dictates are meaningless. Or, France would get its EU military force and fly in to rescue the day, in their wet dreams.

Larry

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

Hehe, lots of them do. The import tariff is one of the classical ways of protecting your market, except it doesn't work that well for products that have been the cause of several trade wars. After a few trade wars all parties get tired of losing so much money that they regulate the market with treaties. If you break those treaties you'll have a full scale trade war with all the other treaty-signers. Some 25 (don't know exactly, to long ago) years ago cheap US steel forced European countries to restructure their steel industries, causing massive layoffs, so now the cheap European steel is threatening US markets and jobs, and it's time for the US to restructure.

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

About Kyoto: I know it's a funny treaty, the rich industrialized nations were able to set their own quota within certain limits and the poorer industrialized countries were being exempted. It's very much a "something is better than nothing" agreement that intended to seduce exactly those nations that were being exempted into signing, so once they unleash their full industrial potential they'll be accountable and not make the earth into venus II. Sure they'll scream, but they'll be just as able to reduce emissions without killing their populations as we are now by then.

About Iraq: (don't take this personally) what exactly was the reason for the US to invade Iraq? 1) violations of UN treaties regarding WMD -> no evidence. 2) Iraq was involved in 9/11 -> no evidence. 3) Saddam is a dictator who kills his own people, let's topple him -> under international law it is strictly forbidden to directly influence the governmental affairs or change governmental structure of foreign sovereign nations. 4) Iraq did not uphold the armistice -> so after the war, you tell us it was because Saddam was shooting at jets over the no-fly zone?

Back in the real world, Saddam has not been proven to be a danger to world peace, so it's still very much questionable if this war was nescesary. Still back in the real world, only the US still thinks so, and the UK still pretends a little sometimes.

Re:Let me respond

[Matrix272]

A bit of circular reasoning here?

No, not really. Iraq never followed the UN's resolutions, over 12 years, and more than 17 resolutions about it... each one basically saying that the UN knew about Saddam's weapons, and wanted him to prove he doesn't have them anymore, and how he destroyed them... never happened. Eventually (thankfully), the US got sick of the UN's mindless, never-ending babbling about how wonderful diplomacy was that they decided to enforce the UN's own resolution without them. Once again, the US has proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it can, and will (given the necessity) drag the rest of the world, kicking and screaming, through the dark times and hard decisions, and make the world a better place overall.

Re:Let me respond

[Matrix272]

Because it was the US itself which (rightly) saw the need for a multigovernmental organisation to avoid (large-scale) wars after WWII; and subsequently co-founded the UN. So the UN has authority over the US because the US gave it that authority; not only by founding it but by signing various treaties also.

Yeah, and I wouldn't have agreed to it 60 years ago either, just like I wouldn't have agreed to the League of Nations (wonderful idea there too). The problem with the UN is that they assume everyone wants the world to be a peaceful, wonderful place, and as 9/11 proved, some people just want to KILL YOU.

Do you have even the slightest idea about international law? What you are saying here is akin to "What if the US government desides to extradite all colored people?"

Yes. That would never happen, would it (*cough* Rwanda *cough*)?

1) Those figures are getting higher and higher. Perhaps it would be wise to wait until the dust settles until we make a judgement about how many people he got killed?

OK, let's do a little math, shall we? It's already been proven (found the bodies) that he murdered 300,000 people over his 35 year reign. Given that most of those deaths actually happened in the last 15 years, we'll use that number. That's 300,000 deaths over 15 years, which comes to 20,000 murders per year, or 1,667 (rounding) murders per month. Since we're discussing the reasoning for ousting him, it's relavent to note that not even 3,000 people have died since the beginning of May... 6 months. So, by my math, we're still 7,000 people ahead.

Oh, and BTW, even if you took the WHOLE TIME he was in power, we're still 1300 people ahead, and that's assuming that 3,000 people died since May 1. Before you ask, I'm not counting the deaths of the Iraqi military because it's not relavent. The relavent figure is the number of civilians murdered over a period of time, NOT the number of military deaths who never would have died if Saddam wasn't so bad in the first place.

2) Iraq is a sovereign nation, just like the US. A nation has no right to mingle in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation. Just as the French can't do a regime change in the US because Bush is a tool, the US can't do regime change in Iraq because Saddam is the devil in person. As long as Saddam and Bush do their stuff on their own territory, another nation can't do anything about it. Simple, isn't it?

Oh, quite simple. *cough* Rwanda *cough* ... *cough* Kosovo *cough* ... *cough* Bosnia *cough* ... *cough* Somalia *cough* . I think you might want to amend your thinking of the whole "sovereign nation" thing to say that a sovereign nation is only sovereign until the UN decides that it's unhealthy for them to do what they want to in their own territory.

Re:Let me respond

[alexo]

>> The man murdered over a million people in his own country, using chemical
>> weapons. What possible GOOD could come from him staying in power?
>
> Those figures are getting higher and higher. Perhaps it would be wise to wait
> until the dust settles until we make a judgement about how many people he got
> killed?

<Carl Sagan> Billions and Billions... </Carl Sagan>

Re:Let me respond

[Rasta Prefect]

The simple fact that no nation in the world is going to allow a substantial part of its production capacity to move abroad.

Funny I thought thats what pretty much every developed nation was _already doing_.

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

Yeah, and I wouldn't have agreed to it 60 years ago either, just like I wouldn't have agreed to the League of Nations (wonderful idea there too). The problem with the UN is that they assume everyone wants the world to be a peaceful, wonderful place, and as 9/11 proved, some people just want to KILL YOU.

That is completely besides the issue. I've posted this before in this thread, but here goes once more: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and there are no WMD over there. So don't complain about the UN being unwilling to invade Iraq, because the UN was right: there was no evidence of Iraq's involvement in 9/11; and there was no evidence of WMD. When there is evidence (like in Afghanistan or Serbia), the UN will call for and authorize military action.

Also, because some people don't want a peaceful world, should we give them what they wish and escalate each and every conflict? I find it very hard to believe that the US didn't want to invade but were "seduced" to it by the Iraqis themselves.

Since we're discussing the reasoning for ousting him, it's relavent to note that not even 3,000 people have died since the beginning of May... 6 months. So, by my math, we're still 7,000 people ahead.

Is this some medieval religious argument about which of the sinners has sinned least? To put it in other words: two wrongs don't make a right; just because the US is killing less Iraqis than Saddam did, doesn't make it right for the US to kill Iraqis.

I think you might want to amend your thinking of the whole "sovereign nation" thing to say that a sovereign nation is only sovereign until the UN decides that it's unhealthy for them to do what they want to in their own territory.

Exactly. Because you can't trust another nations government to do the right thing when it comes to liberating a foreign nation (remember how Hitler "liberated" Austria and the Sudeten in Czechia, or how Saddam "liberated" Kuwait), there has to be an international law to regulate this, and an international organisation with enough authority to uphold those laws.

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

Sure production capacity is moving to cheap labor countries, that's capitalism, but there is a lot of government involvement too; argiculture/the food industry is a nice example. High wages in the rich industrialized nations make the production of food very costly; so costly that there wouldn't be a farmer left if they were not protected by a) import tariffs, b) export subsidies, and c) guaranteed minimum prices. I think that if/when the economical impact of the industry's flight to cheap labor countries becomes to big, governments will protect their markets and jobs, just like they've been doing with agriculture for ages.

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

To say that there is no evidence WMD ever existed because they cannot find them now is like saying that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein ever existed because they cannot find them now.

Wrong analogy. There were weapons inspections when Saddam was in power. Mr. Blix, who lead the last round of inspections resigned as soon as he found that even though it was specifically stated in his report to the UN that it was the opinion of the inspectors that Saddam had drastically reduced his stocks and cut down on his projects, these findings were no reason not to attack; even worse, because the inspectors didn't find anything, they had to be incompetent.

No, but there was plenty of proof that Iraq's government was engaged in terrorism and was gearing up for more of it.

The Iraqi government had contacts do Anser al Islaam, a group operating in the northern Iraqi and Iranian mountains which is said to have ties to al-Queda. They mainly fight the Kurds, which Saddam saw as his enemies also, and one of the Anser leaders personally shot and killed a US diplomat. These are the facts, the rest is just speculation. There is no evidence of Saddam being involved in the planning or execution of terrorist attacks, unlike Colonel Gaddaffi of Libya for instance. Strangely enough, Gaddaffi is still very much in power today.

Re:Let me respond

[Matrix272]

Wrong analogy.

OK, here's a challenge for you, since you're obviously so intelligent when it comes to international law and foreign relations, especially concerning third-world countries that consistently lie and murder. Find me ONE United Nations report that says Iraq does not, and has not, since 1991, had WMD's. If you can't do that, then SHUT UP BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Everything you say is pathetically misinformed, or more accurately, just plain nuts. Nobody EVER argued that Iraq didn't have WMD's. The only argument was what to DO about it. If you can't even acknowledge THAT, then you're completely hopeless, and I hope you have a nice life in your personal fantasy world.

Strangely enough, Gaddaffi is still very much in power today.

And you're the one that says "wrong analogy"? Maybe you didn't get a copy of the memo, but this is a war on terrorism, not just on Iraq or Afghanistan. If Bush thinks Gaddaffi poses enough of a threat to the US, or its interests around the world (most people that agree with you forget this minor part), I'm sure he'll do something about it.

Not that you really know what you're talking about anyway. It's fairly evident you're giving pieces of information to make it seem like you're informed, when you're actually just spinning everything to your advantage. If you're so high and mighty, why don't you tell me what YOU would have done about Saddam? Or, even better, how would YOU find Bin Laden, or would you even try? More relavent question, would your preferred presidential candidate TRY to look for Bin Laden or Saddam?

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

OK, here's a challenge for you, since you're obviously so intelligent when it comes to international law and foreign relations, especially concerning third-world countries that consistently lie and murder. Find me ONE United Nations report that says Iraq does not, and has not, since 1991, had WMD's.

Sigh. There are no reports that say that, and you know it. However, there are reports that state in very certain terms that Saddam was disarming prior to the US invasion. And don't start again about the lying and murdering, because that is exactly what the US is doing today about and in Iraq. There is so much disinformation being spread that opinion polls show 70% of the American people believe things about Iraq and Saddam which Bush himself (when forced) stated to be untrue.

If Bush thinks Gaddaffi poses enough of a threat to the US, or its interests around the world (most people that agree with you forget this minor part), I'm sure he'll do something about it.

And I'm sure he will be internationally condemned for it again. There is no such thing as a legal regime change to protect your interests. The whole f*cking UN debate is about the US trying to legalize its regime changes, while in the past the US itself co-founded the UN to avoid exactly this kind of unilateral descisions to topple foreign governments.

More relavent question, would your preferred presidential candidate TRY to look for Bin Laden or Saddam?

My favorite would be looking for Bin Laden but would not be looking for Saddam, since it is very clear (by presidential statement) that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and the (weapons) experts say he was not stocking up WMD either, but rather was disarming. Get it into your head that Iraq is nothing like Afghanistan. There were valid reasons to invade Afghanistan, but what the coalition is doing in Iraq is simply wrong.

I'm not some kind of hippy condemning every military act indiscriminately; I just try to get my facts straight and be reasonable. In my view the big problem with the world today is that there are two opposing parties of hotheads both claiming it's their (God-given) right not to be reasonable and kill everyone they don't like. The way I see it, it's two groups of fundamentalists holding the world hostage. I'm one of the hostages (because if I'm not with you, I'm against you), and I don't like it.

Re:Let me respond

[Matrix272]

There are no reports that say that, and you know it. However, there are reports that state in very certain terms that Saddam was disarming prior to the US invasion.

That's the point. It was taking him too long to disarm. The original resolution in 1991 gave him something like 2 WEEKS to disarm, AND prove how he disarmed. Obviously, he never did that.

There is so much disinformation being spread that opinion polls show 70% of the American people believe things about Iraq and Saddam which Bush himself (when forced) stated to be untrue.

If, by that statement, you're referring to the State of the Union, you are incorrect. The famous 16 words said that British Intelligent has learned that Saddam tried to get Uranium from Afraica, and as it turns out, he did, and the British STILL stand by that assessment. If you're not referring to that, please explain.

And I'm sure he will be internationally condemned for it again. There is no such thing as a legal regime change to protect your interests.

Then what's a "legal regime change"? Genocide? Apparently trying to kill every Jew in Europe was enough to get rid of Hitler... or was it that he invaded other countries? Would you just let him go forever if he never invaded Poland? At what point would you permit military action?

The whole f*cking UN debate is about the US trying to legalize its regime changes, while in the past the US itself co-founded the UN to avoid exactly this kind of unilateral descisions to topple foreign governments.

Apparently you're buying into the whole disinformation campaign that says that 60+ nations in the world is "unilateral".

My favorite would be looking for Bin Laden but would not be looking for Saddam, since it is very clear (by presidential statement) that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and the (weapons) experts say he was not stocking up WMD either, but rather was disarming. Get it into your head that Iraq is nothing like Afghanistan. There were valid reasons to invade Afghanistan, but what the coalition is doing in Iraq is simply wrong.

One at a time. First, I'm glad you're with us in Afghanistan and Bin Laden. That tells me that you're not beyond hope, and maybe you're simply not getting the pertinent information regarding Saddam and Iraq. Second, the president has only ever said that we have no clear-cut direct evidence that Saddam was involved with 9/11, but there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to convict him in financing terrorism against the US. Third, even if he was disarming while the inspections were going on, why would he kick them out after 7 or 8 years? If he was doing all he could, he would have nothing to hide (and according to the UN resolution, he shouldn't have tried to hide anything). Fourth, Iraq is, fundamentally, exactly like Afghanistan. They are both harboring terrorists and need to be "cleaned". The only reasons Iraq is being protested, is because certain nations have been proven to have a financial stake in Saddam's regime staying in power (France, Germany, and Russia sold him weapons in the 90's, after the first war, and several other countries had loans out to him, and contracts for oil, etc.).

The way I see it, it's two groups of fundamentalists holding the world hostage. I'm one of the hostages (because if I'm not with you, I'm against you), and I don't like it.

Interesting point, and one I hadn't really thought of. I suppose the reason for it is that, in my view (and I'm simplifying greatly, for reasons of brevity), if you have all the facts and you don't agree that removing Saddam from power is a Good Thing, then you have some interest in seeing the terrorists succeed, at least to a degree, or some interest in keeping Saddam in power. Either way, it's fundamentally anti-US.

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

That's the point. It was taking him too long to disarm. The original resolution in 1991 gave him something like 2 WEEKS to disarm, AND prove how he disarmed. Obviously, he never did that.

And obviously, both the UN and the US didn't deem that an offence big enough to restart the hostilities back then. Political pressure was increased, and it had its effects.

What the US has shown the world is that it does not matter for a "rogue state" to obey UN restrictions because the US will attack anyway, it might be even better for them to speed up their weapons programs to have a nuclear defence ready for when their time comes. North Korea refusing further UN inspections was a direct effect of the US decision to invade Iraq.

If, by that statement, you're referring to the State of the Union, you are incorrect.

No, I'm referring to the link I posted in this thread earlier. It's where Bush publicly admits there is no evidence whatsoever that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, while a poll showed 70% of the American population believed Saddam was directly or indirectly responsible.

That tells me that you're not beyond hope, and maybe you're simply not getting the pertinent information regarding Saddam and Iraq.

I'm asking people in this thread to link to all the "pertinent" information I'm missing. By the way, that means hard evidence to me, so I'm discarding word of mouth, especially by "undisclosed sources" (and so should you).

but there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to convict him in financing terrorism against the US.

Show me evidence that Saddam supported or organised terrorism against the US. Even if there is circumstancial evidence, there is hard evidence that Saudi Arabia massively funds Al-Queda, but still the US isn't mentioning it as part of the "axis of evil", let alone invading it. My question to you is: why not?

Third, even if he was disarming while the inspections were going on, why would he kick them out after 7 or 8 years?

The point is he allowed them back in, and he was atually showing he was willing to cooperate for the first time. So the pressure was working, and then the US had a most definite urge to start shooting anyway.

Fourth, Iraq is, fundamentally, exactly like Afghanistan. They are both harboring terrorists and need to be "cleaned".

This is all so naive. Firstly, you (the US) did not recognize Afghanistan as a sovereign state, while you do recognize Iraq as one. Therefore, by your own standards invading Iraq was very much more a questionable act than invading Afghanistan was. Secondly, while you might argue that you have clensed the "terrorists", you're now facing "insurgents" and "rebels" using "guerilla tactics" and are bogged down in what your leaders call "quagmires". The net change is a lot of dead people and both countries being more unstable now than they were before the invasions; if they were breeding grounds of violence and terrorism before, they're much more so now. How much respect you've tought them is adequately shown by your casualty numbers.

he only reasons Iraq is being protested, is because certain nations have been proven to have a financial stake in Saddam's regime staying in power

Didn't you even read what I posted in this thread? There are valid reasons to question Iraq without any financial agenda (I have none, and I come from the Netherlands so formally I'm part of the coalition). Also it's all so black vs. white with you. The US and Saddam had a love-hate relationship spanning more than 25 years, but that had nothing to do with it, right? It was just honest Americans fighting Evil(tm) and some greedy Europeans at the sideline. You should either wake up or grow up.

if you have all the facts and you don't agree that removing Saddam from power is a Good Thing,

Hey, you forgot the (tm)!

then you have some interest in seeing the terrorists succeed,

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

Ok, I'm fed up with the trolling, no more replies to anonymous posts in this thread.

I'm not playing childish yes/no games, if you want to convince me that I'm lying, please prove it, don't just say so.

Re:Let me respond

[fingusernames]

The reason we invaded Iraq was simple. It had nothing to do with WMD. It had nothing to do with liberating the poor suffering people of Iraq. It had nothing to do with mass graves, with sanction violations.

Those things were merely pretexts. The whole idea of a "illegal" war is a wet dream of the "international law" fantasy believers, and thus the logic of using violations of an armistice to speak their language.

The truth of the matter is, Bush had no interest in going to war in Iraq before 9/11. His advisors may have wanted to, but he didn't, despite all the grand conspiracy theories.

Why did we attack Iraq? As an object lesson. Read Friedman: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/ Smart guy.

It is the same reason we fire-bombed Dresden, melted the city, and killed all those people in a hellish inferno. Dresden was an object lesson to the Russians. Iraq was an object lesson to the nations that would harbor/aid terrorists. Do as we wish, or face the consequences. Not consequences of words, sanctions, meaningless UN resolutions. Consequences of the US war machine in a hot war, taking your government down. That's why we attacked Iraq. And that is the real world, not some fantasy land of "proving Saddam a danger to world peace blah blah blah."

And back in the real world, those who think Russia and France opposed us due to some moral issues, due to caring for the people of Iraq, due to a belief in international law and "peace through consensus" bullshit are children. Russia and France armed Iraq, and are owed billions and billions. They engaged in commerce despite the sanctions, and had numerous very valuable contracts pending. And, they had a chance to gang up on the new top dog of the world. Mix that all together, and it was no surprise, only disappointing. That is called realpolitik. As for Germany, they went along because they want to have a buddy-buddy relationship with their neighbor France in dominating the EU. Remember France, the nation that said "we should all respect the opinions of our allies and friends," telling the Eastern European nations to just shut up and toe the line vis-a-vis France's wisdom? France dearly wants the EU to take on a role in the world, led by France of course, as a co-equal competitor to the US in both commerce and political fealty. Not even to mention France's demographics: aging population, low birth rate, high social costs. Their salvation (other than enlarging the EU and spreading the burden around)? Immigration from largely Muslim nations, and their growing Muslim population, and sensitivities to that growing domestic political bloc.

In the real world, Iraq and Saddam are insignificant. The real picture is much bigger. The geo-political structures of the post Cold War world are sitting on some major fault lines, and Iraq just highlighted that. It didn't create the fault lines. We live in interesting times.

Larry

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

Why did we attack Iraq? As an object lesson. Read Friedman: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/ Smart guy.

If the objective was to hit some (any) Arab nation to show the Arabs the US means business, the US has utterly failed to reach its goal. As I've said before, your casualty numbers adequately show how much respect you've tought them. Friedman can argue all he wants, you're getting killed over there. If the goal was building a stable nation in the Arab heartland, the US has failed so miserably it almost becomes laughable.

If you're talking about moralistic goals, you're walking on very thin ice. The US is calling Arab fundamentalists "Evil" while the Arab opinion is that the us is "Evil". This moralism is inherently dangerous to world peace, especially when it attracts religious nutcases (like moralism always does). If it wasn't so irresponsably dangerous, I'd be laughing at the demagogues argueing it's their exclusive right to determine what is good and evil for the rest of the world. Morally speaking, personally I think everybody who tries to force his ideas about right and wrong on me is evil.

Russia and France armed Iraq, and are owed billions and billions.

Get real. The US armed Iraq to fight Iran (and it armed Iran to fight Iraq). Sure the Russians sold them arms in the early seventies and France helped them build a reactor, but it's definitely the US and the other Arab nations that have the biggest financial and political interests in Iraq.

PS: I'm getting utterly bored with replying to this retoric. We've decended from WMD, terrorism and despotism as reasons to attack Iraq to "simply because we can", and you're argueing this is morally right. Yet again, no cognitive dissonance at all on behalf of the people who claim this, just business as usual. If you all think you're right just because you are Americans, you're beyond hope and you will be bombed and shot at for centuries to come.

Re:Let me respond

[Matrix272]

I'm not playing childish yes/no games, if you want to convince me that I'm lying, please prove it, don't just say so.

I'm sorry to say that you're incorrect. The facts don't support what you're claiming they do. You haven't yet given any links to evidence that Saddam was disarming, or that there weren't any terrorists in Iraq, or that there are more people dead in the last 6 months than the previous 6 months.

The best question posed by the Anonymous Coward is "how do we negotiate and reach compromise with Saddam and the terrorists?" It's a reasonable question. If force isn't a viable option, what is?

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

You haven't yet given any links to evidence that Saddam was disarming

Mr. Blix' speech on 1/27 2003:

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

or that there weren't any terrorists in Iraq

It doesn't work that way. If you want to invade a country because you claim it harbors terrorists, the burden of proof lays with you.

or that there are more people dead in the last 6 months than the previous 6 months.

Sorry, can't do that as long as the US keeps the Iraqi casualty numbers secret.

Re:Let me respond

[fingusernames]

I didn't say it would work. I said that is why we attacked. Those are two different topics. As for the occupation and transformation of Iraq being a failure, time will tell. Not less than a year. To argue otherwise merely shows your political viewpoints.

As for the casulty numbers, whatever. Most Americans are not as risk-averse as Europeans. We do not see the number of soldiers being killed as some great bloodbath. Yes, it is terrible. Yes, we wish it wouldn't happen. But our soldiers are not like your soldiers. They are actually expected to fight and perhaps die. That is something that happens when you fight. More people die here from car accidents going out to get damn groceries. A few hundred soldiers being killed in an attempt to pacify a large, somewhat hostile country is nothing. Except of course to their families.

Americans are far, far more concerned with having a policy and strategy that leads to eventual downdrawl (we know there will be no withdrawl for a long time), and if we believe that policy and strategy is rational, we will accept bodybags coming back for a while. The fact that the Bush administration has altered its policy and strategy to adapt to the realities there is something most Americans see as good leadership. Only the political opponents of the administration expected them to have prescience and a perfect strategy before even setting foot in Iraq.

Financial ties in Iraq? You get real. Indeed, we armed and trained Iraq against Iran. But the "modern" Iraq army was built largely of Russian and French equipment. In case you forgot, those were MiGs being buried by Iraq, and Russian and Chinese tanks being blown up. It is a fact that France and Russia and others are owed huge sums of money primarily for military and energy equipment, and they don't want to forgive it. If you're denying that, there's no hope for you. If you think Russia and France and China opposed the war against Iraq because they cared a tiny bit even for the people of Iraq, you are foolish. Those nations wouldn't put a strain on their relations with the United States unless they saw it as being in *their* interests. And *their* interests are financial and political.

As for you, I too am bored with you people. Post WWII, you Europeans developed a strong, strong aversion to nationalism. You have been socially trained that nationalism, patriotism, and such lead to conflicts such as WWII. You have been trained that to avoid conflict is paramount, and that everything can be solved through discussion, consensus, and maybe some sanctions if push comes to shove. You devolve more and more control over your allegedly sovereign nations to inter-national governing and regulating bodies, creating those ties that bind.

And that is all fine, your choice, more power to you. But, you then translate your political structural changes in the last century as being the right and proper way to do things for everybody. You collectively denigrate the U.S. because we do not buy into your mindset, which you have decided is the *right* mindset. Sound a little familiar?

Well, we do not buy into the idea of allowing anyone other than our elected officials to hold the power to make policy and political decisions for us, in particular issues of national security. We do not see fealty to our nation as a problem. And we still believe that sometimes force is required. We don't want to resort to it as a first means, but we won't shy away from using it.

And finally, which of us in this little discussion is being judgemental? Look in the mirror sometime.

Larry

Re:Let me respond

[Matrix272]

Sorry, can't do that as long as the US keeps the Iraqi casualty numbers secret.

That's because if they released the numbers, if even 1 person died in the past 6 months, the democrats and the other opponents of the war would jump all over it saying that we shot an "innocent civilian", and that because we're there, that person will never grow up or have kids or whatever. There's no good side to releasing those numbers, even if it proves that I'm right, and you're wrong... if you actually need proof that is.

I do find it greatly disturbing that you'd rather trust Saddam Hussein, a man who stayed in power for over 30 years thanks to the reign of terror in his country, than George Bush, who was elected by the people of this country, 3 years ago... and hopefully will be re-elected next year. It occurs to me that you truly believe that Iraq is worse off today than it was when Saddam has his secret police throwing people off buildings if they said "Saddam sucks", or beheading them in public squares, or torturing their children to death while they watched. Have you forgotten (or do you choose to ignore) the fact that Saddam murdered his own son-in-law in the 90's, after promising him safe haven?

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

That's because if they released the numbers, if even 1 person died in the past 6 months, the democrats and the other opponents of the war would jump all over it saying that we shot an "innocent civilian", and that because we're there, that person will never grow up or have kids or whatever.

No, they would (rightly) say that it's a little strange to kill the people you're supposed to be liberating. The best estimate of Iraqi civilian casualties is found here, a list of the casualties accounted for by various sources. Even if we take the current minimum estimate the US has caused the death of 7935 Iraqi civilians in the process of liberating them.

I do find it greatly disturbing that you'd rather trust Saddam Hussein, a man who stayed in power for over 30 years thanks to the reign of terror in his country, than George Bush, who was elected by the people of this country, 3 years ago

Here you go all black and white again. I don't trust Saddam and I don't trust Bush either. See, I don't have to make a choice between them, as you all seem to believe. I don't trust anyone who goes to war on false pretexts, I don't care if they're called Hussein or Bush.

It occurs to me that you truly believe that Iraq is worse off today than it was when Saddam has his secret police throwing people off buildings if they said "Saddam sucks", or beheading them in public squares, or torturing their children to death while they watched.

Read this carefuly, because it seems almost impossible for you to understand:

I very much condemn the way Saddam treated his people, but that doesn't mean I applaude the invasion of Iraq. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I think a person must be either brainwashed or just plain stupid to think starting a war against a country is the best way of helping the people of that country.

Re:Let me respond

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

I didn't say it would work. I said that is why we attacked. Those are two different topics.

Then let me take us back to the original topic: do you think that any of a) warning Arab nations by invading one of them, and b) invading counties with differing moral values, are justifiable in an international sense? Let's put up an imaginary scenario: what would happen if the US would have serious issues with Germany and France in the future? Wouldn't you argue it's justifiable to invade the Netherlands (where I live) and wipe out the "evil" of the ICC in one sweep, just "because you can"?

As for the casulty numbers, whatever. Most Americans are not as risk-averse as Europeans. We do not see the number of soldiers being killed as some great bloodbath.

My point was that if you're over there to teach Arab radicals respect, they shouldn't be killing you if the strategy is working. Killing a person is not a great sign of respect towards him or what he stands for.

Financial ties in Iraq?

Interests, not ties. Financial and political interests.

If you're denying that, there's no hope for you.

I'm not denying it. I'm only saying that if the US is investing 80 billion in Iraq, Iraq somehow must be very important to the US. That's an amount of money to invest in under a year to make the Russian and French investments look like peanuts. (And yes I know most of it goes to the military, but you're still paying it.)

If you think Russia and France and China opposed the war against Iraq because they cared a tiny bit even for the people of Iraq, you are foolish. Those nations wouldn't put a strain on their relations with the United States unless they saw it as being in *their* interests. And *their* interests are financial and political.

I'm not being foolish, it's not me who's bringing up liberation of the Iraqi people as a motive for invasion. Of course everyone and his grandma has financial interests in oil-rich countries, but that's not enough reason for them to risk losing all influence on the US via the UN security council. There are real concerns about the world order (see my speculative scenario above), they wouldn't be doing it if they didn't fear to lose their influence anyway.

You have been socially trained that nationalism, patriotism, and such lead to conflicts such as WWII.

No, we learned that from centuries of experience. Those are the two most controlable emotions in a people, it's very easy for a state to create patriots and nationalists, and modern media have made it even easier.

You devolve more and more control over your allegedly sovereign nations to inter-national governing and regulating bodies, creating those ties that bind.

Yep, it's a process called civilization. Regulating society by laws and establishing a monopoly on violence to uphold those laws is what makes our civilization work. This process works on all scales, from the local up to the global.

But, you then translate your political structural changes in the last century as being the right and proper way to do things for everybody. You collectively denigrate the U.S. because we do not buy into your mindset, which you have decided is the *right* mindset.

Slow down. Up until a few years ago, the US was very much like the Europeans in this respect. We didn't found the UN and dragged you in by the hair later. Then there was this relatively new political movement in the US that called itself neo-conservative, which had thinktanks that produced plans to wage war in the middle east, cripple the UN, etc. After 9/11 they got more power than they could dream of and things started to change quite rapidly (and not for the better).

Re:thanks for not getting it..

[WildBeast]

You know, China and Cuba are not the UN, they're only members. And the US, Europe and Canada who too are members of the UN rejected that stupid idea.

Re:Look up non-sequitur

[randyest]

Now if you would show some initiative and try to find out for yourself what the UN does (like the WHO for example), that would impress me.

Oh, oooh! I know this one: the WHO is the World Health Organization. They're the ones who tell the US how many billions it is supposed to spend to solve the self-perpetuated AIDS "crisis" in Africa.

Because, er, well, because it's a crisis, and since the US has the most money, it should be the first to pony up the most! Right? Yay, I get a gold start.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:OT: What part of "militia" do you not understan

[Uncle Joe Steel]

According to US Code TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, Sec. 311 every able-bodied male between 17 and 45 is a member of the militia.

Re:OT: What part of "militia" do you not understan

[Uncle Joe Steel]

Bad cut and paste.

Actual link is TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, Sec. 311

Re:Gore: the big mistake

[sheldon]

The big mistake of Gore detractors is that they keep trying to claim Gore said something he didn't.

The fact is that Gore did take the initiative in creating the Internet as we know it today by sponsoring a bill that funded it's expansion in the US college system in 1986.

You go back and read interviews with Vint Cerf and other fathers of the Internet and they agree that Al Gore was the only legislator who was taking them seriously and was interested in helping them.

This attack on your part shows desperation.

leaving out the important part of the story

[neowintermute]

http://hubproject.org/en/?l=en

http://geneva03.net

Re:The UN is awash in money.

[m0rphin3]

Just for the sake of clearing this up, do you have any links to substantiate your claim?

Re:thanks for not getting it..

[m0rphin3]

Actually, 90% of the spam that bounces from me is from the US, from US servers, and advertise US products.

And no-one is talking about 'subservience' here. You make the UN sound like some unaccountable shadowy organization hell-bent on bringing the US to its knees.

Re:What the hell are you talking about?

[katz]

I'm not going to argue over semantics. You don't want the government snooping on what everyone does? Fine, maybe you'll think differently as more and more of your fellow country men are blown to confetti by Islamists.

Re:thanks for not getting it..

[genner]

"You make the UN sound like some unaccountable shadowy organization hell-bent on bringing the US to its knees." Thats about right. Fortunately there not compentent enough to do so.

Re:Gore's big mistake continued

[sheldon]

Sigh...

It's sad how desperate Republicans have become that they are not even willing to acknowledge credit where credit is due.

Instead they try to spin a yarn about how the opponents are lying by telling the truth.

It's seriously like reading George Orwell.

Re:What the hell are you talking about?

[GileadGreene]

And maybe you'll think differently when you end up being accidentally profiled as a terrorist, like all the "Dave Nelson"s out there...

We have suffered one (1) Islamist terrorist attack in the US. It was a wake-up call for everyone. The only reason it succeeded at all was that the terrorists exploited a loophole in the policy for dealing with hijackers. That loophole has been patched by virtue of the fact that people will not sit idly by and let a plane be hijacked now, as they would have in the past. Over-reacting to that single attack (no matter how devastating it was) will not make things better. Remake our society into a police state, and the terrorists will have won.

Incidentally, given the fact that the FBI and CIA were unable to catch the 9/11 group before they did anything not because they had no info, but because they had far too much info to process, doesn't it seem silly to deluge them with even more info - most of it useless?

Sorry for being so utterly OT...

[popo]

But such casual use of the "human rights offenders" brush can't be ignored.

To quote Dershowitz: "holding Israel to a higher moral code than all other nations is indeed anti-semitic."

France's moral abuses in Africa this past year (for example) are of a scale and proportion *SO* much larger than Israel's. But ...not a peep from the UN.

And let's not even talk about the internal human rights abuses that go on DAILY in EVERY SINGLE ARAB NATION. We're talking about countries that practice female genital mutilation (excuse the grafix) and don't allow their women to drive cars.
And not a peep from the UN. Europe regularly discusses embargoing Israel, and France did billions in business with ... (OMG) ...Iraq!

Get with the program. The UN *REGULARLY* bashes Israel. Its not that Israel is perfect. But the truth is IT IS NOT LESS PERFECT. (We imprison suspects without trial. We assasinate legitimate leaders. And NATO forces in Afghanistan had the worst collateral damage figures of any army in the last 20 years).

The UN's focus on Israel's actions *is* anti-semitic. // --> End of Rant

"How come I wasn't invited?"

[XahXhaX]

Just as long as the RIAA and MPAA weren't.

Oh yea.

[Simple-Simmian]

Just what we need China, Zimbabwe, Cuba and Iran deciding how the "internet" should be run.
Casto is showing up in person.
So it shold all be double plus good right?
We really need the UN to fix something that isn't broken.

It Seeks Overall Control

[rs79]

If you go back and read your net.history you'd see this was a predictable outcome to a meeting of Tramposch (WIPO) Shaw (ITU) and Heath (ISOC) at an OECD meeting in Ottawa in 1996.

Don't kid yourselves, the UN knows it can't do this, the ITU, who have long been seeking relevence in a post TCP/IP workd will be their instrument.

As one of the founders of the alternative root movement I couldn't be happier about this. The more control that is siggested the more people relalize their own DNS servers edge control the internet and that there is no central control.

"Mr. Abu-Ghazaleh plans to propose, at the private meeting, that Icann be placed under the umbrella of the United Nations communications task force, which gives equal status to government, private sector and nongovernmental organizations.

Under his plan, the United States would have permanent presidency of an Icann oversight committee. The International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency, and the International Chamber of Commerce would also have permanent membership, as would the World Intellectual Property Organization and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development."

Looks like they're IAHC'ing IAHC.

Re:Complete knowledge of history

[the_mad_poster]

Oops, again, my little AC. You've taken it back TOO far and your talking about something completely different now (how convenient it is to try and quietly change the subject when you realize you've had your shit wrecked because you can't tell your own bigoted personal views from reality). If you can provide any compelling evidence that suggests which of the warring parties (Jewish or Muslim) actually started the fight you're referring to (since I'm talking about the Crusades, not the Middle Eastern problems in the general area of Israel that are continuing to this day), myself and a whoooole lot of other people would love to see it. While you're at it, why not use your incredible powers of psychic deduction to determine who fired the first shot of the revolutionary war?

You see, unlike Urban's bloodthirsty Crusade where a bunch of European fanatics charged into Turkish territory (and got their asses soundly whipped the first time, I might add) with no goal other than arbitrary slaughter, the Jews (who I had not mentioned prior to this) and the Muslims were bitchslapping each other back and forth the same way they do now. See, whoever has the power just steps on the other guys toes. Sorry, but your personal, ignorant interpretations of a historical era that's not well understood don't count to anyone buy you and people like Jerry Falwell. Go argue that with someone else. No matter how far you push it back, someone will point to some other "atrocity" that the "other side" committed that required a response. Eventually, you'll hit some murky area where nobody can really tell who did what.

It's fun to watch people like you squirm when they're confronted with facts because, for whatever idiotic reason, you can't come to grips with the fact that religion doesn't equate to morality and you don't have to have religion to be moral. Let me give you a clue - Christianity has, historically, been one of the single bloodiest major religions in history. The Jews had the mantle before that and the Muslims are taking it up now. I guess it's easy to cast stones at individual beliefs based on what a well-known group of fanatics is doing while ignoring the fact that well-known groups of fanatics within your own individual beliefs are just as bad.

This took place in the modern-day Israel area, right?

And, incidentally, no. It took place in modern day Turkey and pushed East as the fights wore on. Eventually, the Crusaders pushed as far as Jerusalem, but they got their asses kicked after awhile and got sent home whimpering (excepting a large group that got trapped in the area).

Re:Better workers

[cayenne8]

Cheap doest not usually equal best....I find that in most things in life...you get what you paid for....

Re:Some corrections

[the_mad_poster]

There's really no argument on any of the other points, so I refer to this one:

You are changing your tune. You brough the Crusades up earlier as a justification for the current problems.

I'm not changing my tune at all. Although I took a bit of a willing sidetrip into the problems of the Middle East between the Jews and, well, almost everyone else (at your instigation, I might add), the point remains grounded with this statement you made to start this portion of the thread:

That is the root of their hatred.

That refers to three points you made above and, I'm telling you, the "root of their hatred" is not those three points because we were "at war" with this fundamentalist set (whether we knew / admitted it or not) long before the U.S. and modern Western culture even came into existance. The root of their hatred can be reliably traced to the beginning of the Crusades that Urban instigated which has little or nothing to due with the issues surrounding the constant warring between Israeli and Arab states. The other issues are merely supplementary reasons to hate, not a root cause.

Re:Iraq is even worse

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

Yes there is. Look at the "Regime change" that Japan forced the US to visit upon it in WW2. Besides, the IRaq regime change was in Iraq's interest (to stop Saddam's mass executions) and in global interest (to remove the threat of a global terrorist/imperialist leader). Not just the U.S. interest.

The difference was Japan was an agressor, Iraq was not. What's in the interest of the Iraqi people is for them to decide, not for the US; to safeguard the global interests we've founded this thing called UN.

No, he was refusing to disarm, balking inspectors at every chance. The fact that he had anything at all to disarm was a blatant violation of previous promises by Saddam, and the cease-fire.

Well, the weapons inspectors who carried out the last round of inspections don't agree with you. Sadam was quite desperate to cooperate because he knew he was in big trouble if he didn't, with the massive coalition forces buildup just outside of the Iraqi borders. Blix was convinced that Saddam was willing to make fargoing concessions to stay in power. If Saddam was willing to play nice, why topple him, bomb a country back into the stone age a second time in merely a decade and get yourself and a lot of innocent people killed in the process?

Please, quit the "global terrorist" propaganda until you give me hard evidence, because I'm not willing to take anyones word for it, I want proof.

But you have yet to make a valid argument to support your "Saddam should have stayed in office" argument.

Sigh. I don't like Saddam, but Saddam was not waging war but minding his own business. As much as I hate the dictators and autocrats of this world, no other government has the right to just topple them without being attacked first, or the world will end in chaos.

If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Yeah, just keep repeating the slogans. It really makes you look like someone who thinks for himself.

No, it is telling the truth about Iraq, and it is killing terrorists who refuse to submit to arrest or who attack people. You made two lies in that sentence alone.

This is getting redicilous. You all swallow the shit you're fed without ever tasting it, do you. No cognitive dissonance, everything business as usual. Just one question: how many terrorist attacks were there in Iraq prior to the occupation? It's more like 1) there is resistance against the occupation, 2) in the power vacuum existing now some questionable organisations are extending their field of operations into Iraq, and 3) maybe even the Iraqi rulers-to-be have interests in keeping up the chaos a little longer, until the people demand a strong government (Saddam-style).

Unilateral US decision" is another common lie told about the situation (a lie you just used). A decision involving more than 50 countries is not "unilateral". Words mean things. Look up this one before using it again. Next time, tell the truth about things.

Unilateral in this context means not backed up by the UN; the US made its proposals, but they were rejected (look up that word). The US still carried on without the support of the UN so that's not a multilateral decision, IOW it's a unilateral decision.

Condemnation coming from places like France (who proppsed up Saddam and profitied from it) or despitic regimes like mainland China are a badge of honor. If you do something good, they condemn it

Let me tell you no one profited from Iraq like the US and the other Arab nations. It was the US who sold Saddam the weapons to fight Iran, while Olli North was secretly selling to Iran. The US kept a war, fought with bearly armed Iranian "human waves" against Saddams modern weapons, going on for years. The Arab nations did very little to support Saddam while they had everything to lose if Saddam lost and the Ayahtollahs exanded their powerbase. Iraq lost one sixth of its male population in this war, and Saddam wanted compensation from the US

Re:What the hell are you talking about?

[katz]

>And maybe you'll think differently when you end up being accidentally profiled as a terrorist, like all the "Dave Nelson"s out there...
That's a short-sighted way of putting it; I can just as easily tell you that for me, the threat of many people really getting killed far outweighs an accidental errant profile.

It doesn't matter that Islamists have attacked the U.S. one (1) time. They use the U.S. as a base from which to plan more attacks around the world. So profiling benefits not just U.S. national security.

>That loophole has been patched by virtue of the fact that people will not sit idly by and let a plane be hijacked now, as they would have in the past.

Two things here:
1) terrorists will adapt to barriers. If they can't hijack a plane, they'll do something else that generates as much attention (bridges, cruise ships, etc); They don't necessarily have to 'hijack' in order to make an impact. They do this in Israel all the time, quick-and-dirty and without the hijacking drama. Profiling gives security forces a way to track /how/ terrorists plan to overcome barriers, so that the security forces can handle terrorists before they cause catastrophe (I'm just restating myself, perhaps I didn't convey this clearly before.)

2) Terrorists are being profiled anyway, and state-sponsored Total Awareness is not something that we don't have already. It'd just be official. The government can easily track your credit card purchases, bank statements, etc. Deep down, the government will do whatever it takes to ensure national security--if there's a law barring them from tracking your credit card history, they'll do it anyway.

> Remake our society into a police state, and the terrorists will have won.
The U.S. is already a police society. Have terrorists "won"? How does a terrorist "win"? What does "winning" mean? Do they take over the U.S.? This can happen if people become complacent about obvious red flags. One example of this is the Wahabi-Islamist school ("Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences") in Fairfax, VA that only recently lost support from the Saudi embassy. Prominent Wahabi clerics came over there to lecture. What do you *think* they were preaching there, social tolerance?

Writing off profiling as an "over-react[ion] to that single attack" oversimplifies matters. Terrorists attack all over the world *now*, using different countries (including the U.S.) as bases. And national governments already track terrorists. Israel is able to stop most terrorist attacks on its soil simply BECAUSE they have spies and informants up everyone's ass.

>Incidentally, given the fact that the FBI and CIA were unable to catch the 9/11 group before they did anything not because they had no info, but because they had far too much info to process, doesn't it seem silly to deluge them with even more info - most of it useless?

Now, you bring up a different issue. Are you saying that profiling is too inefficient to successfully mitigate terrorist attacks? It's been proven in Israel. Granted, it's a smaller region, but the terrorists who plot against it are certainly internationally connected.