Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Sterling says: Marry the UN and the Net
An anonymous reader writes "SF writer Bruce Sterling is guest-posting on the global-eco-tech blog Worldchanging today and thinks we ought to marry the Internet and the United Nations. 'The UN has cumbersome rules, no popular participation, and can't get anything useful done about the darkly rising tide of stateless terror and military adventurism. The UN was invented to "unite nations" rather than people. The Internet unites people, but it's politically illegitimate. Vigilante lawfare outfits like RIAA and MPAA can torment users and ISPs at will. The dominant OS is a hole-riddled monopoly. Its business models collapsed in a welter of stock-kiting corruption. The Net is a lawless mess of cross-border spam and fraud. Logically, there ought to be some inventive way to cross-breed the grass-rootsy cheapness, energy and immediacy of the Net with the magisterial though cumbersome, crotchety, crooked and opaque United Nations.' It's obviously part tongue in cheek, but it does make you think."
Nice capitalization, plus it makes a whole lot of sense too...
Without the International Criminal Court (and the cooperation of every nation in the world), this kind of system simply won't work. It'd also bring up a lot of juristiction questions, such as whether it's okay for the Internet Police to make arrests in the United States, above the authority of the FBI and such. Also, who would watch them if they even had this power? Corruption in the Internet Police would be impossible to stop.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
Isn't the UN just some tool of the US Federal Gov't, itself a tool of some secret group like the Skull & Bones?
Yeah, let's give the last remaining actual "freedom" we have left (the Net) over to the most corrupt and widely-policing Capitalist Authoritarian organization possible.
I think not.
-AC
Hey! You got Native Americans in my Las Vegas there-is-no-mafia owned casino!
Hey! You got Las Vegas there-is-no-mafia casinos in my Native American "reservation".
Hey! You got GPL code in my closed source OS.
Hey! You got monopoly computer company IP in your GPL.
Hey! You got ineffective "League of Nations" world government in my "Wild West" Internet.
Hey! You got "Wild West" Internet in my ineffective "League of Nations" world government.
It's more ambidextrious that leftist... still bullshit though.
Most...
confusing...
post...
EVAR.
Cats meow and dogs bark. I know! Let's marry them and get an animal that can do both!
destroy authority.
The Internet should be for the People, by the People, and of the People. There has to be a better solution than having the U.N. get involved.
Sterling forgot to mention that the UN is as rife with corruption as its member states are.
" but it does make you think.
It makes me think Mr. Sterling may need his medication checked."
Typically when people say "it makes you think", they subconciously mean the opposite.
Take all the UN delegates and let them telecommute. Send them to the UN wiki sight, and let them go at it. Resolutions, pronouncements, the whole bit all resolved through wiki edit wars.
All the world's problems would be solved instantly. Or at least it would be entertaining to watch.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Why not marry the UN and the telephone? That would make about as much sense. The United Nations is a government entity, the Internet is a service.
The worst aspects of the UN and the internet would amplify one another.
One of the biggest issues with the UN right now is that the role it wants to play and the world, and the role the world wants it to play, is still not clearly defined. Moreover, the UN really hasn't shown that it is a useful mechanism for much of anything-- it's kind of usable as a voluntary system for forming consensus between countries which wish to do so, but it has a system which has ZERO proven ability to act as a governing body over anything whatsoever at all-- the UN has never done anything but coordinate activities in which all parties are acting consensually. The one thing that the UN does have going for it is that to a certain extent it's consistent. Give it some sort of authority over the internet and this all falls apart because suddenly it has direct authority over something where money is involved, meaning it's in the interest of those with money to start directly influencing it rather than simply buying its member nations.
Meanwhile if the idea is to go the other way and have the internet start to impact the UN, that's an even worse idea. That would mean that level of participation and influence in the UN a certain area has would be directly linked to its level of technologcal development and affluence.
Meanwhile, what *is* the appropriate role of the UN? The suggestions offered here would muddy that question even further, perhaps to the point where a clear answer to that question would never manage to emerge.
...and I'm here to help!
The internet is driven by it's users, the UN, the protoype world goverment, is driven by power.
The internet has intelligence at it's ends, the UN intellegence is centralised.
The internet routes around censorship, the UN is censorship.
He's from the goverment and all he does is cost money and fuck things up.
[SCENE: In the cellar, Neil is hard at work with a pick-axe, while Rick is just poking at the floor, hardly moving at all. Vyvyan is standing over them.]
...will rise up and seize control of the state! Brilliant! Revolution!
VYVYAN: Get on with it, Rick, you big poof!
[Kicks Rick aside and jumps in the hole, starting to pound with his head. Vyvyan and Neil alternate for a bit, then Vyvyan's head gets stuck in the hole, and Neil drives down with the pick-axe.]
NEIL: Oh, sorry, Vyv.
VYVYAN: [stands, with the axe stuck through his head] That's OK, Neil. It was bound to happen sooner or later. [Collapses]
RICK: [leans over] You all right, Vyvyan? Vyvyan?! [pause] Great! This is it! I've been waiting two hours for this. It's a revolution!
NEIL: What do you mean, revolution?
RICK: Blood runs! Flags wave! Come on, everybody, throw down your tools and knock down the barricade. Come on, run into the Winter Palace. Run into the Winter Palace and stand on tables, waving bits of paper at each other! Yes! Yes!! Hello, are you the Czar?!
[jumps up and down, excited]
Yes, I am, actually. [points a finger] Bam bam! Tough luck, fascist!!
[Neil takes out a tissue and starts waving it around]
That's what happens to people who aren't working class! Yes, Neil. Listen. I've got everything ready. In ten minutes time there's going to be a massive rock and roll benefit in the drawing room. And right at the climax, the oppressed working classes of this house, that's you, mainly...
NEIL: Right.
RICK:
NEIL: Revolution.
RICK: Watch out, Norman Tebbit!
[The screen tumbles and fades out. It fades back in to find Rick and Vyvyan sprawled in the basement.]
RICK: God! I wish they wouldn't keep doing that!
NEIL: It's the passage of time, Rick.
[Vyvyan stands up, throws up, falls down]
Yes, it does make me think...about the horrible crimes and abuses of the system that will occur. I acknowledge things are pretty bad right now, with individual countries trying to enforce ineffectual laws, often limited by jurisdictional issues. But that will be nothing compared to the hell-hole it will be if the UN ever sinks its claws into it.
"Help you take down that {child pornography} to protect the children? Son, our mandate says we are here in a security role only, unless the shots are aimed at us, we can't fire back."
The UN forces assisted the Hizballa, a fanatic muslim organisation in Lebanon, by covering up for them in the abduction and murder of 3 Israely soldiers. UN vehicles were spottted by a UAV transporting Kasam-rocket launch crews in the Gaza strip, belonging to the fanatic muslim group called Hamas. Are we supposed to trust the UN with something as precious as the Net?
Don't forget Alex Chiu.
The tighter you squeeze Lord Annan, the more networks that will slip through you grasp.
It would be like a fist full of jello. The tighter they try to make the controls the more you'll see independent and censorship free networks rise. Such as Area Wide Wireless Networks and sub networks like freenet.
What could possibly go wrong?
It makes me think you are right.
I'm confused here. Is Sterling proposing that the Internet be regulated to carry only the lowest common denominator of traffic? No political dissent, because China vetos it on the Security Council? No pr0n because a coalition of Moslem states raise a motion forbidding it, then use their block vote and the implicit threat of terrorism to force it through? RIAA and MPAA running hog wild because the US ties humanitarian assistance to acceptance of its IP agenda?
Sterling really ought to stick to the novels, tho' having said that, apart from Difference Engine I haven't been impressed by any of his work.
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
However in reality giving the UN control of the internet is a dream:
- It would require all countries to give up their own laws regarding computers placed in their country (eg. Germany could not forbid nazi-propaganda spread by german servers). A sacrifice few governments will make - and even fewer to the UN.
- It would require the UN to make (many & complex) laws about theese sort of things. Seing how hard it is to agree on something in the UN now, this could not be done.
As I said: nice idea, butBefore too many people start saying "the UN is powerless", please think what the UN actually is.
The UN is a place to discuss problems between countries, to discuss world-wide problems. It is a place to organise solutions with regarding to global problems. It is an umbrella under which people can operate without having to worry from which country they are coming.
The UN consist of, included but not limited to, the Security Counsel, UNICEF (childrens fund) and the UNHCR (refugees). Don't judge the whole UN by the (in)capabilities of one section.
The UN itself doesn't have much power, they have as much power as the contributing countries give them. If the world cries "UN, help them!", but the countries don't give men and material, the UN can't help.
The UN is a place to resolve problems if everybody wants to resolve them, it is not a power which can resolve problems on its own.
bash$
Exactly.
The UN was created to unite countries, but it's largely ignored by powerful countries *cough* Iraq *cough* - and the Internet is beginning to being largely controlled by big corporations.
The goals of the UN are laudable, but quite honestly they are powerless to do just about anything substantial, except humanitarian and aid-work. What is the use of an International Body when you cannot keep aggressors at check?
From the Blog -
Then bride and groom would unite their virtues and overcome those gloomy vices gnawing at their vitals.
Hmm, what if it happened the other way around? Both of their negatives brought each other down?
Powerful corporations exist in powerful countries whose governments are controlled by powerful corporations.
It also provides for a single point of failure, if the so-called union did happen.
And oh, this is my 1000th comment. Yay!
"Germany could not forbid nazi-propaganda spread by german servers"
Who says that the UN will change Germany's law and not just outlaw nazi-propaganda anywhere on the internet?
Creative Demolition
The Internet is still "cool" because it has that lawless wild west sort of feel to it. The useless bureaucracy that is the UN would only make it un-fun. Sure it may be "dangerous" if you dont know what you're doing, but why would anyone wander around the wild west if they didnt know what they were doing.
Seriously. He gets more air time then he deserves.
I can see the charter now:
1. Notice spyware problem.
2. Announce commission to study spyware problem.
3. Approves resolution condemning spyware problem.
4. Watch as spyware problem continues.
5. Repeat steps 3-4
Has it ocurred to anyone that the reason the UN "can't get anything useful done" is that the US owes close to $600 Million in dues? The US also routinely withholds money whenever it feels it can gain leverage on an issue.
Add to this the fact that the US has veto power over most issues (meaning it can skew any issue to suit its' purposes) and refuses to recognise the need for anything like an International Criminal Court and you have a recipe for a dysfunctional organisation.
The UN fails in its' role due to the often devisive action (or inaction) of the US. Perhaps if the US were a better global citizen the UN might have a chance of actually working?
my 2c
If you want world democracy, start from scratch. A political party entirely ruled through direct democracy and consensus is possible. That means that even if the party becomes part of a state or national government, all its political decisions are made by the whole membership. This in itself gives people an incentive to join the party, creating a snowball effect. The key to making the whole thing work is to tie the process of voting on ideas to the process by which people arrive at judgments about ideas, i.e. to connect democratic media and democratic decision-making. That way you avoid the common pitfall of direct democracy, ill-informed voters. You could in fact make participation in the democratic media a requirement for participation in the voting process.
This is not an unsolvable problem. It's just that there aren't enough people who care about solving it. Yourparty is similar to what I describe here, IIRC, although I'm not sure they're doing the democratic media side of things.
It gets more complex when you try to address the major problem of centralization, which has potential for abues. Then you soon get into discussions about replacing the web itself ..
as if the 'net isn't getting screwed up enough with over-regulation. put the UN in charge of it, and you wount be able to do ANYTHING that might concievably offend someone else...
the UN needs to be abolished.
Our glorious, progressive 20th century institutions gave us about a hundred and fifty million real, rotting bodies to enjoy, while this vile anarchic 21st century internet has given us a only few hundred pictures of corpses--and most of them are the same old dead people from the 1900s!
It's just uncivilized.
Projecting from today's numbers, the internet will have produced not even a dozen violent deaths by century's end. Something must be done to end this lawless barbarity before it corrupts us all!
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
If we did create an Internet Council, then perhaps some precautions to prevent abuse. One, don't allow current politicians to hold a position. Two, don't allow anyone who has held a political office in the past six years hold a position. Three, have term limits.
Are you a nerd or Joe Sixpack? Calling the internet a service...
Soldiers abduction 1 - scroll to the October 2000 part.
Soldiers abduction 2
Amunition carrying ambulances etc. [WorldNetDaily]
As for the rockets, the footage is a day old, so I couldn't find a link. Sorry about that.
Did any of you RTFA? This is more about implementing a system for UN diplomatic underlings to get work done online than having the UN "take over" the internet. The concept of having a secure, government to government electronic communication system probably would be faster, cheaper and more effective than gathering in Geneva every time we want to discuss the price of cod fish.
How Idealism works:
1. Point out things you are unhappy with, no complaint is to small to be totally blown out of proportion. Make sure you compare whatever exists to a perfection that need not be possible to attain.
2. Propose solution! The solution is to always get rid of the evil conspiracy holding back progress, because the answers to how to do really complicated things on a large scale are clear to everyone and all that stands in the way is the conspiracy.
3. Leave all the details for later (and there are a lot of details). Explain that you or your favorite know-it-all organization have to be in charge of things before you'll even bother with figuring out the details.
4. Get in power, screw up far more than what was there already and blame it on the continuing legacy of the conspiracy.
5. Propose even stronger more drastic reforms. Continue from here to step 4 until people are totally sick of you and tell you to get lost or you've totally destroyed what you were trying to fix to the point that nobody cares about it anymore.
Erm, nevermind the UN, but the net...
Getting married with her sure sounds exciting!
**Maybe I can have flings with PCs and Macs when the net is busy transiting to IPV6 too!
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Addition to language noted.
In his novels Singularity Sky and Iron Sunrise Suggested that after the Spike/Singularity/quite a while the IETF would be the only vestige of current political institutions and be the UN.
I think it was just a throwaway, like having a door dilate, but it entertained.
Google is currently at its peak, and for the next few years will be THE search engine in terms of Global search but more Local searchers will be established and make it harder for google to gain into those markets. Look at WWW.Renjo.com to see what i mean. Its a fairly new search engine that uses lots of complex algorithms that offer something else to google and its proved popular compared to google but then again arent they all. For one of the Newly minted Google people, id say take the money and go for it yourself and start your own, go to school, do research, retire whatever.
Even peace can only work if both sides want peace. After WW2 the european nations more or less decided that there were to be no more wars (on european soil between european nations, the rest of the world was still open season) and because all of them decided it it happened. Even though spain and england have a dispute over the rock of gibraltar. Even though Ireland and England are in dispute. Even though most of the nations have a long long history of war with each other there has been peace.
But even in europe there are still wars, Northern Ireland and Baskenland, because in those cases one side doesn't want peace.
Or maybe I am using the wrong word. It is not so much a case of wanting or not wanting peace. It is a case of the various sides wanting or not wanting things but not considering war to be a way of achieving those wants.
Simple example. Drugs. The Netherlands has a rather liberal policy on it, France does not. In the past the frence goverment wanted holland to change its policy but not so badly as to go to war. Unlike america wich has gone to war over drugs.
The UN can only work if all the sides involved consider war not really to be an option. It is like those pub fights were arguments flare up and things get out of hand. In some cases both the fighters can't back down but really want a third person to step in and stop the fight allowing both to save face. If however one in the fight really wants the fight to happen the third party is powerless.
Of course the world is not a pub. In a pub you got maybe 4 sides, the two fighters, those who want to watch a fight and those who don't. The world has got close to two hundred countries with each country often having conflicting intrests. The fact that the UN still exists may be considered an achievement.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yes, and the internet can work just like the UN: put Microsoft, SCO, the RIAA, the MPAA etc. on the "Software Rights" Commission. It would be analagous to Lybia and such being on the "Human Rights" Commission.
Mod Parent Funny! This is the best site I've seen in days. It makes Slashdot look as entertaining as a book on Organic Chemistry!
Provide a forum where you are have experience in trying to get a whole bunch of disparate boobs to agree on something? More funding? More representation by countries who are currently forced in to accepting a Mostly-English Net, thus preventing their contributions? Enshrining Open Source principles in stone? Getting together to formulate a worldwide legally accepted GPL-type standard? Most Important: A new way to spread Anti-Bush jokes
The UN is about government force. It chooses by politics, pull, and muscle. It operates by coercion, subtle or overt. To the extent it has any high minded ideals, they operate like laws: instructing everyone how to behave, and threatening punishment for disobedience.
The internet is about freedom and choice. Partly, it works because of mutual cooperation for mutual profit. Partly, it works because of the liberty to NOT cooperate, be a maverick, and invent something new (which might be better), and sell it on its merits. Just like the free market, basically.
It's no surprise they won't mix, they're FUNDAMENTAL OPPOSITES.
He who posts useless things just to be first should check his sentence before he posts.
This is an interesting combo that I see frequently on the Net coming from people who would greatly benefit from a more Socialist society and economy because they're typically lower class, uneducated types or at least trolling for that mentality. It inevitably leave you with the impression that the writer actually supports fascism just like the dupes in the thrities and for the same reasons, ie immigrant bashing, subtle racism --in the beginning anyway-- and an inflated image of national historical importance. Oh, and don't forget the vague references to religious or superstitious metaphors and, as we see in this post, a bit of straight-up paranoia.
Intriguingly, a take-off on this same technique of mixing up the incompatible, or doublespeak as Orwell would have it, was used in the thirties as we can plainly see from the acronym Z in the acronym NAZI which stood for Zocialismus or something like that. In this case, it was a case of co-opting the popularity of socialism at the time while mixing it with nationalism despite the fact the two were clearly incompatible.
So, the rhetorical strategy, crude as it is, remains the same basically. Just mix up anything that you imagine is popular or unpopular and use it as a blunt weapon to force your position by any means. The Republican Party has a staff that specializes in just such techniques and they've been remarkable successful in their efforts up to this point.
Where they fail, as we saw in the recent debates and here on Slashdot, is when they have to face criticism of their transparent techniques. As long as they can shout louder than anyone else, they can simply shove their way to the top, but when the forum is moderated, this is no longer possible.
its funny
Then how come the UN does nothing but try to bring the USA down to its level?
Could you provide examples?
In general, I'm reasonably impressed with the UN -- I'd say that it's one of the greater diplomatic achievements the world has ever seen.
May we never see th
Seems to be a bit askew...
/rant
In general, it's 'give, take and learn' (and a few more, like 'forgive', but that doesn't apply to the net) for both sides.
In your description, you're making it sound like
- The UN does all the taking
- 'The net' does all the giving
- nobody learns
Sterling isn't proposing that the UN take over control of the net. He's proposinig that whilst the UN -can- form a form of governing body over the net*, the UN could also learn from the net how to be more flexible and direct - more accurately, it will -have- to learn how to be more flexible and direct due to the nature of the net.
* btw... the riaa/mpaa/fbi+cia+nsa/foreign commercial|government institutions already do what you describe. If there's a some kid in The Netherlands which hacks an American company and causes some grave damage, the American governmental bodies will conduct an operation in conjunction with Interpol to try and find the person and bring them to justice (including extradition where appropriate).
A specifically good example would be your Muslim thingy (as other posts have shown - flamebait line right there). If a Muslim state wants to block porn on the net they can do so on their boundaries of the net already - just look at China (great firewall of) and North Korea (unpenetrable firewall of). However, with the UN as a governing body, one might imagine the 'burden' to become to lay with its member states* to simply block traffic towards such a Muslim state directly. No need for filtering at hundreds of points - just block the traffic at the major 'highways/crossroads'. That doesn't mean porn would be blocked everywhere. Of course there's an element of trust involved there; "Who says the UN wouldn't block information on yaddayadda to the US? How would we tell??". But quite frankly you already have to trust governing bodies and even commercial entities from not doing anything like that - so there's no change in direction there, other than that there would be a single governing body who could actually slap the wrists, by political|policing|control means, of those government bodies/commercial entities who cross the line.
* member states, I think, is an important notion. Not -all- countries are UN members ( http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html ). Therefore there will, by default, be states that needn't adhere to any of the policy|policing of the net. And on the flipside, that means the UN could instruct its members to refuse dataflow to those states - if it should choose to do so, which is doubtful.
The US people are delusionnal and live in there own rewritten bubble . Dont mind anything they say.
This article poses an interesting point, but there's another view... as to all the things that were said about the Internet, could not it's weaknesses, its very chaos, be its strength? 'Politically illegitimate'... that expresses it best. Under the current state of affairs, the RIAA and those like it can try to strike at will at those things that it dislikes, but none the less it can be unsuccessful in the long run, new, better networks springing up even as those it struck at topple down.
Now, what if the Internet were merged with an 'official', government-affliated system? Yes, there might be more security--at least on the surface--but there would also be less freedom. If the 'owner' of the Internet one day decided that no p2p networks whatsoever should be allowed, then it could disallow them, and no one would be able to do a thing.
Has anyone read Tad Williams's Otherland books? Remember the state of the Internet then, and of the existence of TreeHouse? Do we really want the former, or for the latter to be forced to come about in order to protect the few freedoms remaining to us?
Sometimes, anarchy is the most desirable state of existence.
1. Members were caught trading in sexual slaves. It was reported on by many mainstream media outlets, including newspapers and major networks. Go to http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8& q=united+nations&btnG=Search+News for a pretty good compilation of the various articles reporting on these sandals.
2. Kurt Waldheim was elected Secretary-General of the UN, despite the fact that he was a known war criminal (A Nazi Lieutenant). http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/warcrime.html and http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1995/191/191p21.h tm
3. A good chunk of our natinal parks have been GIVEN to the UN as collateral if we default on our debts. They intend to give them more. If you examine a map of what percentage of the U.S. the U.N. wants to get its hands on within 10 years, it takes up over somewhere in the area of 90%. Check out http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread45831/pg 1 and http://www.store.yahoo.com/infowars-shop/amdesbyde s.html You can also download the video on emule ed2k:7Cfile7CAmerica20Destroyed20By20Design20Plz20 Shareavi7C7306690567C93E0EE8D68CBE6221E90D20284B4A 9867ChTWFQ3T6MQZLW2BHYJ2TIZYY6J2G2SX5Q7C
The author has given his permission for people to share this movie on the internet.
There are plenty of other reasons to oppose any expansion of the UN's influence in America, but I'm tired and looking for refernces to back my claims has become a chore. Investigate and enjoy.
Politics at that level is nasty, the USA (and not only the USA) has moved to neuter the UN at every step, almost as badly as they did with the league of Nations in the 1930s when they wanted trade with Italy and broke the sanctions. If the USA wanted to go into Iraq without the UN by design they couldn't have done it a better way - the reaction of France to threats (vote with us or face the consequences indeed!) was entirely predictable by anyone with the vaugest idea of international politics (although I still think it was total incompetance and ignornance and not planned).
If you want the Internet to be ruled by dictators (like the UN is), this is the way to go.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to see the Internet filtered out to the sensibilities of the likes of Libya and, hell, just about any other country's whims, including the United States.
Or perhaps I should say, not the countries, but the governments and corporations of those countries. Nevertheless, the effect is the same.
The Internet's success in assisting freedom is because it IS largely lawless and uncontrollable and the only way to perpetuate these ideals is by allowing it to continue to remain in a state of semi-anarchy.
The General Assembly is a joke. Look at most of its committees. Either chaired by the very people they are need to investigate or totally impotent because they spend their entire time bashing Israel?
Jump over to the Security Council where VETO power protects the big 5 from any world responsibility or rebuke.
This same organization cannot even stop obvious cases of genocide because they take too damn long to act. They always want to review the issue, then sanction the bad guy, and only act after the oppressed party is reduced to little more than a handful. Nearly all of election monitoring they have provided was ripe with fraud as they will not put their monitors into situations where they could be killed, in other words - if you promise not to harm our UN people we will say your election was fair.
HELL NO! The Internet will be what reveals the UN for the failure it has become. It will fully reveal all the machinations of an organization taken over by 3rd world dictorship led countries whose only agenda is to oppress their own people and blame Israel.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Has it ocurred to anyone that the reason the UN "can't get anything useful done" is that the US owes close to $600 Million in dues? The US also routinely withholds money whenever it feels it can gain leverage on an issue.
So you believe all you hear, right? Have you ever considered which national military makes up the bulk of the UN "peacekeepers"? Did you know the US is billed for 25% of the UN's operations (over 30% for the "peacekeeping" operations), in addition to the non-dues support it provides (which has estimates ranging from 15-20+ Billion in the last 8-10 years)?
Indeed, between 1992 and 1997, the US provided "voluntary" (in truth all of it is voluntary, the UN has no rightful or legal claims to *any* national treasury) support topping 11 billion dollars --just for "peacekeeping" activities. A march 1997 report showed US troops supporting such actions numbered approximately 68,000.
Hey, maybe we can just "pay our dues" and stop making all that voluntary contributions. Whaddya say? Wanna trade that 11+ Billion for 600 Million? No? Didn't think so.
Did you know that in fact, when it comes to peacekeeping forces, more than half the member countries refuse to make payments? Indeed, the UN thinks it is owed some 5+ BILLION in USD, yet we don't see you, or other UN apologists, pushing for the rest of the member countries (about 2/3rds any given year) to pay up (BTW, France is included in the top 5 list).
And FYI, the "withholding" of US funds has been tied directly to reforming functional aspects of the UN, such as the portion the UN allocates, the funding of conferences and organizations directly opposed to the United States (something no country should have to support -- organizations that oppose it), and a proper accounting of the US' military support which has far exceeded it's "assigned share".
Add to this the fact that the US has veto power over most issues
So does Russia, so does China, France. All five of the permanent members of the UNSEC have veto powers, but that is ONLY limited to the (in)Security Council. "The council's five veto-wielding permanent members are China, France, Russia, the UK and the US."
Indeed, do you know which country has used their veto power more than the rest? Bzzzt, no it isn't the US, it is USSR/Russia.
-- http://www.peace.ca/securitycouncilveto.htm
In the UN General Assembly, there is no veto power. Indeed, the UN GA can override the SC through UN resolution 377 which allows the General Assembly to recommend collective action "if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security".
http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/landmark/a major.htm
And guess which country pushed for that ability? Yup, the nasty old United States, in 1950. But that action has rarely been used. Indeed, only ten times since it's inception has it been used. Why was it not used in the Iraq affair? not enough support. If the majority did indeed oppose it, they were apparently unwilling to go on record as being against it.
Given the actual layout of functions and powers in the UN, your claims fall flat on their face, as the US does not have "veto power over most issues ", that the USSR has used the veto power more than any other member of the SC, that veto is no
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
no comment
from the exerpt you gave, it's not the slightest bit tongue in cheek.
in a very short paragraph, he's expressing some views which basically say that the effects of capitalism - which you are taking for granted as sacrosanct - are causing some really serious world-wide problems; that the internet is viewed by those who support capitalism is a threat _to_ capitalism.
except he's not quite come out and said that directly, because, of course, capitalism _is_ sacrosant.
i recommend anyone who believes that capitalism is good, or that corruption and bribery is bad for trade, or that racism extends just to skin colour, to read _all_ of Ian Macleod's sci-fi books, back-to-back.
if you can't hack Ian Macleod then at least go read some of Anne McCaffrey's co-authored books.
No. It isn't. It's lame and a tiresome cliche.
A dose of reality is being ignored? Typical /. moderators. Liberal claptrap gets moderated up and rational truth gets ignored. The parent ought to be at +5 right now!
G.B. Shaw once met a lady that told him "Oh, we should make a son; just think how wonderful would it be, someone with your brain and my looks" "Yes, but what if he comes out with my looks and your brain?" What makes sure that the cross-breed will have the best, and not the worst, of both worlds?
"I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
This is a terrible idea from a interesting writer. The UN can't even stop the genocide in Dafaur, Sudan right now because of the utter lack of leadership and less than useful objectives.
A sack of dogshit. Leave the monitoring to the countries. It's offensive to not have your own ruling body take care of itself. F$ck the UN and ICC.
I'd say marrying the UN and the net is really CRAZY. We are talking about an organization that can sit happily while people are dying and all the officials know is probably to sit in their nice offices and collect fancy paychecks.
What should be the best solution?
We, the users take the "cyberlaw" into our own hands! The only crime will be that against freedom of speech and the only recourse will be a permanent disconnection from the net!
Once the People have spoken, everybody on the planet (presumably we all will have one small client running) will start sending little packets to those turds.
That should teach them!
Spam from china?
Scam from nigeria?
Well, if nobody does anything, their entire nation's link is not going to live very long under the People's action!
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Saddam Hussein would have fallen from power long ago and the Iraq war never occurred had Kofi and Company not taken billions of dollars in bribes in return for helping Saddam circumvent the trade sanctions levied against Iraq after Gulf War I.
United Nations Oil for Food Scandal.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Kofi, is that you?
Is it just me, or is griping about the internet the new fad of late?
Oh god, the internet is broken, oh god, the internet is doomed. Oh there's no control over the internet (isn't that a GOOD thing, even with some of the bad stuff?)
I keep hearing over and over from certain individuals that the internet is broken and doomed. I get on it every day and read up on topics of interest, chat with others, download files, etc and it doesn't seem very broken to me. Yes there are a lot of unsavory types and sites out there, but the same applies to the real world. The internet right now seems to work just fine as is, so why made such a radical change to who runs it if most of the problems on the internet are avoidable today? How is making the UN run things going to change the corporate corruption and 'stock kiting?' I don't see how this helps or changes anything.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
this isn't an article *about* the UN.
This isn't an article where americans can say the UN sucks; (vs.) the rest of the world that says the UN should be in control.
all topics without 'internet' and/or 'net' should be labelled offtopic.
--- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme,
Then I'd say your easily impressed.
When one gets to such extremes, things begin to seem similar. Facism and socialism, while at opposite ends of the spectrum, are generally both authoritarian enough that people use either as a negatively charged synonym for it.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
The United Nation's policies on self-determination have failed to equitably support the right of self-determination for all peoples. "Peoples" has come to be defined by the UN in restrictive ways that are politically correct. Hence the UN cannot effectively address the need for humanity to have frontiers for peoples of like mind to live out their beliefs.
To have an entity that so violates the need for self-determination be "married to the Internet" would be theocracy's dream and freedom's nightmare.
Seastead this.
The UN was invented to "unite nations" rather than people. The Internet unites people, but it's politically illegitimate.
Darn it - my respect for Bruce Sterling has been diminished. This is the kind of naiveness that comes from staying too cerebral and avoiding painful realities of politics, corruption and power. Bruce is still one of my favorite writers, but just as no sane person looks to a Hollywood actor as a credible source for political perspective, extreme visionaries should be thanked for challenging the status quo and proposing radically different (if not absurd but interesting), though usually unworkable ideas.
Consider: US progressives (liberal/leftist/socialist/whatever your label is) correctly criticise many conservatives/right-wingers/etc. for being anti-government - as if the government was some evil autonomous, lifelike entity aka Godzilla. While bureaucracies can act oppressively, the reality is that the oppression is usually a manifestation of individual action and will. Bad governments don't raid the cookie jar, bad people do.
Applied to the UN, it too is not an autonomous "evil organization" in itself and should not be measured on that basis. It is, however, a composition of its elements, and overwhelmingly its members and leadership are crooked and apothetic regarding the welfare of the world's masses. It is comprised overwhelmingly of representatives appointed by dictators and corrupt governments. They appoint UN administrators that mirror their own philosophy (which is why no one should be remotely surprised that the Iraq Oil for Food program reaches throughout UN administration and much of the EU elite - so what if that money Chirac got caused one-hundred thousand Iraqi children to starve - Chirac needs a new vacation house!). Imagine the Internet run by China and you'll have the best-case model for UN Internet (you can guarantee firewalling of ideas will be applied univerally - no UN would permit the criticism by foolish European and US citizens. ) And understand that my attitude on corruption is terribly US-centric; corruption, bribery and coercion are acceptable business forms in most of the world. If the China Internet model didn't prevail, a Venezuela model would be the minimum (perpetually broken, money's always missing, special friends of powerful interests always seem to get all the goodies, everyone on the take down to the smallest guy but nobody is around to make it work and everyone is miserable. Opposition and criticism is loosly tolerated though occasionally results in people being shot).
Just as conservatives need to check their paranoia vs. the UN and "the government,' liberals need to check their heads on their own paranoia and self-loathing of their governments and quit seeing some fabrication of an autonomous world organization to save them from George Bush, Newt Gingrich or whoever the scary monster of the day is. Practical criticism is one thing, but absent effective assessment vs. the rest of the world, their actions will only ensure totalitarianism. Go check the CIA's Fact Book on the political status of world nations.
So what would a UN+Internet look like? No different than Oil for Food. Any assets will be repurposed for the political/power/personal benefit of corrupt powerful interests (and no, not Halliburton - one needs to read about the real private money power in the world and quit subscribing to this misdirection - go read about George Soros and why he's spending so much money to confuse the idealistic young sheep in the US while he instructs his investments to outsource jobs to the third world, works to get US youth hooked on narcotics, etc. Why is Mr. Soros critical of outsourcing when he's one of the most powerful proponents of it in his business?)
Recognize the UN for what it is and will always be as long as most of the worlds citizens are either oppressed or unwilling to stand up for their own liberty.
"Four legs bad. Two legs better!"
The philosophy of the net started out mostly anarchist or humanist - later, the capitalist or libertarian took control.
/.'ers are looking for something similar - so
At the UN, it seems the same.
What I and my friends do is meet and form more Humanist associations and groups - on all continents. For the past year, I've been at it in South America.
I'm sure many
google Humanist-Movement (in proper language) + country / large-city-name
humanist-movement bombay
movimento-humanista +sao-paulo
--------------------
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Sure. Let's do a polygamy-style thing and get the Trilateral Commission in there while yer at it. And we can invite the Bilderbergs. And we could have the RIAA host the whole thing. Ugh.
Stateless anarchy + entrenched beauracracy = goodness? I don't think so.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
I don't know who I have less respect for: an undemocratic institution like the UN or loony under-educated geeks who toss around verbiage like "business model" as a subsititute for legitimate thinking.
If something as important to me as the Interent is going to be regulated, I want then regulation done by someone I can vote out of office. I can't vote for my UN ambassador (neither can you).
Nor can I vote for the people running the Internet today. It may be supported by a lot of good people, and perhaps it really is permeated with the spirit of open source, but it isn't democratic. Attributes like open and free don't mean it is democratic.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
This was done a looooong time ago. It was called "UUCP"
The U.N. is an organization full of people who've spent their lives prefecting their delivery of "please pass the sweet and sour shrimp." Put that organization in charge of the Internet and you're going to have endless meetings to come to agreement on whether bits should be represented by 1 and 0 or something else. Don't even get me started on anything more complex.
In general, I'm reasonably convinced that the UN is a den of corrupt thieves - theirs is one of the greater abuses of diplomatic immunity the world has ever seen.
Saddam Hussein would have fallen from power long ago and Gulf War II never occurred had Kofi and Company not taken billions of dollars in bribes in return for helping Saddam circumvent the trade sanctions imposed by the UN itself against Iraq after Gulf War I.
United Nations Oil for Food Scandal [google.com].
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Mr. Sterling, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in the world is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Virtually every year for the past couple of decades it has almost universally condemned Israel's refusal to follow international law in its occupation of Palestine, what has that accomplished?
While Israel has killed some innocent civilians in the West Bank and Gaza, their primary intention is to pursue and proactively eliminate terrorists, with civilians who die in the crossfire an unintended consequence. The problem is that that most of the world and UN, you included, are focusing in on Israel and condemning this country while blatantly ignoring the far more indiscriminate oppression of people in Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Timor. The problem of the UN being practically castrated in its power is only compounded by its obsession to punish Israel due to a large base of antisemitic nations.
"Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates the 'vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say 'more honest,' not better - because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government - and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects."
Alissa Rosenbaum
- From "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus"
The real political spectrum ranges from anarchy at one end to dictatorship at the other. The various transitional forms of dictatorship/oligarchy-implementation are indistinguishable except by those in control.
Given the atrocities by the head of the Human Rights Commission against their own people in Sudan. Given the outstanding ethical way that they handled the oil-for-food program with Saddam's Iraq. Given the freedom of speech support by the member states of Iran, Communist China, and North Korea. And you want to entrust them your right of free speech won at the cost of blood of our veterans over the past 200+ years?
There hasn't been a successful UN mission without US involvement. They need US, we don't need them. We don't need a psycho dictator from some back water Third World shit hole telling us what we can and cannot see on the internet.
wganz
How many other ways can I toss up information and the entire world can view it if they want?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
As a "student" of history, the U.N. is just about as laughable as the old League of Nations. Heck, they didn't "stop" Hitler when he violated the Versailles treaty countless times, which lead to WW2. The U.N. was developed from the ashes of the League of Nations after WW2, and about the only thing they are good for, is taking up prime real estate in NYC, and, getting its members out of parking tickets LOL. As stated above, they are a corrupt, inept organization who's time has passed. It's time to get the USA out of the UN, before wer turn our selves over to them, and their stupid laws.
Don't claim things and expect us to believe them. Provide proof or none of what you said matters.
The wedding incident happened because they were firing guns into the air IN A WAR ZONE, and were seen as a threat to a plane overhead. To say that we blew up a wedding because we knew a wedding was going on is insane.
You're almost there. Actually it is:
The Icann has cumbersome rules, no popular participation, and can't get anything useful done about the darkly rising tide of stateless spam and VeriSign's adventurism.
COWUUUBE!!!!
I think this is more left wing propaganda and some dipshit who advocates transfering a US asset into the hands of the incompetent.
Once again, michael, go fuck yourself.
I guess we'll find out whether the USA has
the stomach to prosecute war crimes, without
reliance upon the ICC. Based upon many years
as a student of human nature, and of the USA's
political processes, I would hazard a guess
that we will need both the UN and the ICC for
prosecuting war crimes. Of course, my opinion
also presumes that the UN and the ICC will still
matter (or exist) after a second Bush term.
But he wasn't there to get anything done. The hard part is when you're there to do a real job, like making global roaming for cell phones work.
What do you think "Nazi" was short for? That's right, "National Socialism".
You've taken a bit of flak this time but don't sweat it, you are still one of my favorite writers, and the idea is cool! The bit about the UN scares me a little though. I don't think I want the UN moving any faster than it is now, they already do enough damage. Though the CIA may thank you. The idea is neat though, shades of the worldnet game played by Laura's poor husband in Islands in the Net, that image has embedded itself like a wedge in my brain for over a decade. (Good book!)
So I think it would be really neat if this network blackholed the UN, but covered energetic young, energetic government people in different countries since they are the one's who will do anything unifying, the people who send info up to the top and prioritize it. The secret will be let out on a need-to-know basis. By the time these younguns grow up, say 20 years from now, all governments will be internetworked with officials who still use the nostalgic World Wide Web of Nations or whatever they (you) call it, as it reminds them of their starry-eyed idealistic youth and they get some good gossip from it too.
For fun I tried a little search and replace, to make the last paragraph a little more real for some of us. At least those into flattening society and reducing some of the deadweight on top. Partly tongue in cheek..
Hope I didn't wreck what you meant to say. My guess is those sherpas are really using MS Word but they are too scared of the corporate(government) firewall to send RFCs to their potential friends in other countries. Might shortcut a lot of the process and serve to keep Libya and Sudan of the board though!Terrorism is not stateless! Get a clue.
Gamers are already getting 12 shades of shit for being gamers. Hell, i cant go to certain places without getting rocks thrown at me and being likened to the columbine gunners. Merging the UN would just subject us to even worse treatment and bring in a couple dump trucks worth of paperwork and political hot air balloons. The internet without the UN is like a soldier fighting without an accordian, all your doing is leaving behind a lot of noisy baggage.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Was not a fundie muslim (well, until the war started anyway when he rediscovered Allah).
PLEASE STOP WITH THIS MUSLIM == TERRORISM CRAP!!!
Well now moron, please feel free to visit ANY video chat site and watch the Muslim terrorists belittle ladies from the world over. You 'sir' are an ignoramus. If Muslim countries and governments actually kept their perverted asshole men adhereing to the religions' tenents, instead of looking for some tits and ass over their borders,the world would be a better place for the ladies of the world. People might not want to kill them all off.
And if you review history, Muslim=ShitheadedCamelrapistswithnohonor. Is that YOUR picture next to the definition?
and democracies work slowly.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
It makes sense to me.
We're making an Internet Hive Mind.
It's started with commited group efforts like Free Software. As communications technology develops, we start seeing things like Wikipedia.
As it develops further, we will see things like the project-space network, and local economies and sharing networks. As it develops still further, local governments will be mediated over by well organized electronic communities online.
Really, if this all seems strange to you, you have no idea the power of communications technologies.
Before "wiki," a piece of software, there could be no wikipedia. After that piece of software, it's almost impossible for there not to be a wikipedia. Details could be different, but the basic idea is almost an inevitabilitiy.
We are not done. There's still a hoard of communications software in the pipes. We're just now getting our event systems online. We'll start seeing things like "OverHear," allowing you to hear your friends' public conversations, with voice even. As we get the ability to index the world's voice conversations (with voice-to-text software), we'll be able to ask, "Who in the last 5 minutes said this world," we'll see that the online world will become one gigantic OpenSpace conference. We'll see the conferences, we'll see the group affiliations, we'll see the projects, we'll see it all.
I predict that between 2015 and 2020, the Hive Mind (by some other name) will be a recognized and powerful force. It will also recognize itself and it's own power. We could call this the day that the Hive Mind achieves "self-awareness."
It may even have a military force- I don't know what else to call a gigantic networked mess of sympathetic hackers, chemists, biologists, and lawyers. It is not unthinkable that "the Internet" may become it's own "sovereign nation," of sorts, lack of an independent land be damned.
So, connecting the idea of the UN and the Internet is not all that strange. I mean, what else? What else could it possibly be?
Our next generation "communications software" isn't so much about making it so that messages can be sent from person to person in different ways, but about organizing the existing communications, and about organizing ourselves. We're putting in individual-to-group affiliations, and affiliations amongst groups with each other.
There's no reason to believe that our communications will stop networking and developing.
People do not have their attention on our trajectory. They see half the people downtown walking around with cell phones stuck to their ears, but they don't think that anything can "come next." But it will. There's much much more on the way.
The "Hive Mind" will look less rediculous, I think.
In 5 years, VoIP will be mature, and have basically taken over. Online group VoIP conferences may be primitive, but some ordinary people will be using them. Semantic web technologies like RDF will be in mainstream understanding and use (like XML right now), and our computers will be noticably "smarter" than the information desplay we have today. Tablet's will be cheap and accessible, and we'll tighten up the "I drew something"-to-"There it is on the web" loop. In short, our conversations will be full of napkin diagrams, Visual Language will take off beyond web comics. Our user interfaces will have transcended (finally) the box-ish interfaces, because graph data-structures have taken on new-found importance, and with the new interfaces, we'll see component lan
Al-Muhajiroun spiritual leader Omar Bakri hailed last week's attack on a school in southern Russia in which close to 400 people, including many children, were killed, and said that holding women and children hostages would be reasonable for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule.
... As long as the Iraqi did not deliberately kill women and children, and they were killed in the crossfire, that would be OK."
- 6577r.htm
Bakri told The Sunday Telegraph, "If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040930-114632
An Islamic spiritual leader scheduled for arraignment today on charges of counseling others to engage in a holy war against America told followers that he was "overjoyed" by the crash of the space shuttle Columbia, which killed six U.S. astronauts and one Israeli.
According to court records, Ali Al-Timimi, 40, of Fairfax, a primary lecturer at the Dar al Arqam Islamic Center in Falls Church, also known as the Center for Islamic Information and Education, said the Feb. 1, 2003, disintegration of the Columbia as it entered the Earth's atmospere brought welcome adversity to the United States.
"This morning, the world heard news about the crash of the space shuttle," Mr. Al-Timimi said, according to a six-count indictment handed up in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. "There is no doubt that Muslims were overjoyed because of the adversity that befell their greatest enemy.
"Upon hearing the news, my heart felt certain good omens that I liked to spread to my brothers," Mr. Al-Timimi said.
The space shuttle disintegrated 40 miles above the Earth. Debris and human remains were scattered over thousands of square miles in Texas and Louisiana. The seven astronauts were commander Rick Husband; pilot William McCool; payload commander Michael Anderson; mission specialists David Brown, Laurel Clark and Kalpana Chawla, a naturalized U.S. citizen from India; and Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon.
Mr. Al-Timimi, a U.S. citizen, was indicted last week by a federal grand jury in Alexandria on charges of counseling members of the so-called Virginia jihad to wage holy war against the United States. He also was accused of aiding the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, violating the Neutrality Act, using firearms in the furtherance of crimes of violence and counseling others to use firearms and explosives.
Don't forget kiddies, more international government poking around your computer will mean the net will become less politicized, more secure, and cheaper! And if you believe that, I have some primo beachfront property to sell you in Nevada!
The UN can't get anything done with diplomacy, huh? This sounds familiar..
We simply cannot sit around and let our people suffer and die while we wait for matters to be discussed in a committee. I move for a vote of no confidence in Supreme Chancellor Valorum.. Uh orr.. Yeah.
NO REGULATION OF THE INTERNET! Period.
The Internet, by all accounts, has flourished precisely *because* there has been little/no regulation.
The UN will fuck up and overregulate the Internet the same way they fuck up everything else and the Euro-area countries which largely make up the influential part of the U.N. overregulate their societies.
Fuck the U.N. I want the Internet to remain free as in "freedom," not free as in "free to do what the U.N. allows you to do."
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
And I have to applaud this idea. We have all seen how good the net is at getting people to talk to each other from very far flung communities - here I am ranting against yanks yet again after all ;-) The processes and mechanisms of the UN are derived from the great committees and councils that were the best way we knew to organise nations over a hundred years ago. Now it is time to move on and utilise 21st century means of communication and organisation within the UN. Committees can now meet virtually on the web. Non-members can contribute even if not present. We can all see what is going on. Surely we netizens can appreciate the possibilities. Sure it may degenerate into flame wars again and again (much as the security council has done for the last 40 years when Israel comes up).
Perhaps the United Nations of the 21st Century will be a Bazaar not a Cathedral?
--
USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.
so you needn't worry about that, citizen. Get back to work.
This is by far the smartest thing that has ever been posted by a slashdot user! OOoo Ooo and while we're making the world better, lets also combine Microsoft with Linux into one organization! And lets take the near universal adoption of religion and put all of their energy and beliefs into making science more approachable! After that we'll just breed flying monkeys!
I can see the headlines. The intrUNetwork sent cease and decist letters to the sudanese rebels today, demanding an end to the genocide.
Kofi Annan has never taken anything.
As for lower officials, I am sure bad things happened, but saying unsubstantiated lies does not solve the problem.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I've got a cat that fetches things, comes when called, and sometimes makes a noise that sounds like "reowff."
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
Tiny little problem was that for a long time america had no nukes and even later could have destroyed only a tiny percentage of the soviet union by wich time the soviets had the bomb as well and the whole nuclear balance of terror began.
Anyway america is in plenty of places right now and that isn't stopping anyone from fighting.
Just like it didn't in korea or vietnam.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.