Slashdot Mirror
Why Talk About Internet Governance?
andyo wrote to mention an article on the O' Reilly network entitled Why They're Talking About Internet Governance. The piece goes into the history of how things came to be in the first place, as regards the distribution of internet domain space. From the article: "Having established commercial beachheads on the Internet, corporations wanted to own the whole terrain. Through the World Intellectual Property Organization ... they were designing a new regime for handling domain names. It was nicely suited to large corporations ... Within weeks of the successful conclusion of the Global Incorporation Alliance Workshop, a lash-up of Internet leaders, Network Solutions, and other back room forces popped a proposal of their own on a surprised and unprepared Internet community. The proposal ... ultimately led to ICANN. Most stakeholders were left out of the decision--even many large corporations were angry--but the Commerce Department approved the proposal, happy to wash its hands of the issue. "
I think you're comments show exactly why some of us Euros don't think the US should be in control (of anything). I thought maybe with all the military activity the US national geographic awareness may have risen a little...
Yes, because we hate your great democracy, why else.
Wake the fuck up from your phased out neopatriotic dream.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Better a live (paying attention!) one than a DEAD one - like the argument you're presenting.
j ustifindex.htm
As for those little things called facts clouding your argument - you are absolutely correct! Must be why you're avoiding them.
FACT: The Bush administration, along with their friend Blair presented false documents and BS information to persuade the vote to go their way.
Votes that supported Bush's wargasm aren't exactly legitimately given when they had to be LIED TO to get them.
One (of many available!!) example - From the Downing Street Memo: Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/
LMAO
Ooo! Ooo! Mud Slinging, mud slinging! Never mind the fact that I corrected an outright incorrect statement, I'm actually "presenting a DEAD argument!" I love this logic! It's so screwed up, it would take a Scientologist to sort it out!
Calling your tired argument "dead" is mudslinging? You partially corrected a not all that incorrect statement by cherrypicking and twisting your information to support your case. Tip: some of us can see the whole picture as we haven't had our information already pre-digested (and of course cherrypicked) for us.
Really? I'm avoiding facts? The facts are that the parent replied to another AC stating that "none of those people started a war with Iraq". The HARD FACTS of the vote record say differently. 77 members of Congress (including Kerry, Lieberman, and Clinton) all voted to give the President the authority to wage war. They didn't have to do that. They could have struck it down and ask the President for more info. But they didn't.
Yes, you are avoiding facts. And you're twisting those you claim to be presenting.
FACT: the OP was correct. "None of those people" DID vote to start a war with Iraq. They did however vote to give Bush authority (and anyone that voted for this legislation is an IDIOT - you'll get no argument from me there) to take military action against Iraq IF and only if certain criteria was/was not met.
This is the entirety of the "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES" contained in HJ Res. 114:
1. Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
2. Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Conspicuously missing from HJ Res. 114 is any "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES" to free the Iraqi people, bring stability in the Middle East, or spread democracy throughout the world.
Regarding the first requirement: We now know all the WMD and imminent threat hype we heard during the buildup to the war was a complete pack of lies. Iraq had no WMD, no nukes and after a 12-year embargo and bombing campaign, they had virtually no army. So Iraq was certainly not a "continuing threat" to America. And, even the President now admits, there were no Iraqi ties to 9-11.
No one in the administration is even attempting to argue any longer that Iraq was an actual threat to America. Instead, they make the argument that we were obligated (for as yet unexplained reasons) to rescue the Iraqi people from the hands of an evil dictator. The only problem is that Congress never authorized the President to depose Saddam Hussein by invading Iraq!
The second condition is even more ridiculous to use as a justification for this war. There was a small army of UN weapons inspectors crawling all over Iraq in the months leading up to the war. The only thing they were able to identify as a clear violation of Security Council Resolutions was that some of the Iraqi rockets could travel a few more miles than was "allowed." And those rockets were bulldozed into scrap metal before the invasion!
Hans Blix, Executive Chairman, UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, warned our government there was a high likelihood that everyone was wrong about the Iraqi WMD, and asked for more time to search the country. Looking back, it would appear that the government of Iraq did in fact substantively meet the requirements of the UN resolutions. (But even if they hadn't, why should that be our problem?) Based on the fact that there was no hurry to invade, the UN wanted nothing to do with the war and did not support our decision to invade.
So the second condition of HJ Res.114 is invalid as well.
The FACT is that John Kerry then tried to get out of his vote. Not by apologizing for a mistake, but by stating that he "Voted against the War in Iraq." Except, he voted against the war in 1991, not 2002! Only after the truth came out did he backpedal and state that he was "duped." Which