No, because it isn't the reason Bush started this war. Mass-murdering dictators are a dime-a-dozen, unfortunately - there are many others besides Hussein. And the US doesn't hesitate to support them if it suits some politically expedient purpose(Saddam Hussein was supported by the US back in the 80's). China has been committing genocide in Tibet for decades and executes more people than the rest of the world combined - many of them "guilty" of nothing more than criticism of the state. Yet China enjoys "most-favored nation" trading status with the US.
Fair enough. However, China is insignificant in terms of the War on Terror. Sure, they have nukes and they're a dictatorship. But the chinese didn't attack us on 9/11, Arabs did. The middle-east is the birthplace of Terrorism, not China. So thus the strategy to make the middle-east into a democracy would curb the terrorist threat facing the U.S.
Besides, you don't just storm into a country that has Nukes. Not unless you want to have countless casulaties. You can use sanctions and containment for those types of countries, which Reagan did to win the Cold War. (No, the Soviet Union didn't "just collapse") For Iraq, intelligence showed they had Nuclear programs but no nukes, thus you could invade and not risk casulaties. That's not to say the U.S. government didn't think he had bio/chem weapons, as there were all those drills where the troops had to put on their gas masks.
The Bush administration never said Iraq has nuclear weapons. The whole reason was to attack Iraq before it became an imminent threat. For examplem, North Korea. Back during the Clinton administration, Jimmy Carter went over there to try to curb their Nuclear capabilities. They lied right to Carter's idiotic face, and he believed them, and Clinton allowed probably the Worst U.S. President in History to represent his foreign policy for him. Then we find out, oops, North Korea indeed did not stop it's nuclear weapons programs, and has Nukes right now and is willing to use them if they have to.
Are you saying we should invade North Korea? And risk killing kabillions of U.S./Coalition troops? That was the whole reason to go to Iraq, before it represents that same situtation that were facing in North Korea.
Saddam supported al-Qaeda. There's oodles of evidence for that. He even supported a terrorist training camp called Salman Pak that had an airplane where they trained terrorists to hijack airplanes. Sure, there is no non-refutable direct link, but you can't ignore all the amounting evidence.
Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. [...]
"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he said. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."
It's quite silly just to dismiss Saddam as having "no connection" to 9/11. How, exactly, do you know that? Are you saying you have better intelligence than the #1 Government in the world? Give me a break.
Saddam was all cozy in his little kindom, not having any weapons of mass destruction or anything, and Bush decided to go after Iraq, not the other way around. He did it for many reasons: Oil, a distraction from internal scrutiny, a well known villain, but NOT because Saddam attacked America, because he never did.
Ooooooooooillllllll!! It's all about oil!! Our zionist, imperalist thirst for oil! That mantra is so sad it's now became cliche. Nevermind if Bush really wanted oil he could of just lifted the sanctions. Or how about that story from the NYTimes where Saddam offered Bush all his oil if he didn't attack, yet Bush still went forward with Operation Iraqi Freedom? Or why didn't we take Iraq's oil during the first Gulf War? Hmmm?
Your citing his governor record though. The governor of Vermont before Dean raised taxes so much there wasen't even anything left to raise. So Dean proclaimed himself some amazing "balance budgeter" when all that happened was the massive taxes just cleaned off the spending debt.
Dean may of governed "right of center" or "moderate", but he sure isn't running for President with his resume. No doubt, however, he'll just cite his resume to try to win the swing voters after he's done with the far-left primaries. That won't work, though, because everyone already knows about his far-left stances he has as a democratic candidate. Him running back to center will only make him look like a liar and a fraud.
Read the Kay report. The sanctions worked. Iraq was no immediate danger. Hunting Osama would have made more sense.
Yea, read the Kay report. It says Iraq indeed was in violation of Resolution 1441. The sanctions didn't work. Saddam ignored the sanctions and exploited the oil-for-food (or, as some like to call, the oil-for-palaces) program to pay for rearming. The Kay report even talks about previously unknown negotiations with North Korea in purchasing weapons materials.
The Bush administration never said Saddam was an imminent threat. In fact, Bush said we couldn't wait until Saddam became an imminent threat ("... we can't wait for a mushroom cloud over New York City..."). The whole point was to remove a brutal dictator who starved and butchered his people, exploited the oil-for-food program, ignored over a dozen U.N. Resolutions, used and had WMD, attempted to assassinate a U.S. president, paid Palestinian suicide bombers, paid for and supported a terrorist training camp (including airplane hijack training) and lied to and deceived U.N. weapons inspectors. Remember North Korea? Remember good-ol' Jimmy Carter going over there and negotiating with them? Yea, "containment" worked with them alright.
Regarding Osama: What do you think they're doing now? (And have been doing) Drowning Afghanistan with troops isn't going to root out bin Laden from his cave anyways. Besides, it seems UBL is in Iran right now and was transfered there before the bombing (by the Iranian government).
But it's simply wrong. The problem isn't Clinton cutting the military in half (actually I have no idea what he did with the military) but what Rumsfeld did with the military. The US military proved to be more than adequate at defeating the Iraqi army the problem is that they lack the know how for occupying and administrating the country and Rumsfeld himself reduced the part of the US Army which specializes in that.
Read my previous post on the Iraqi occupation and the post-war plan.
With the current army the only way to secure Iraq would be more soldiers but the reason that only 150000 were used wasn't something Clinton did but the all new shiny Rumsfeld doctrine.
Yea, and the way to heal my cut is to paste more Neosporin on it until the pain goes away. Bush has said he's willing to commit more troops, less troops; whatever to win in Iraq. The truth is that the generals in Iraq say they don't need more U.S. troops, just more Iraqi police (which is going to be 200K+ by the end of the year). It's easy to criticize, and it's easy to just say "more troops!" whenever you see a soldier die in Iraq.
You should read RAND: Nation-Building from Germany to Iraq. The truth is that Nation-Building is not a science, there are so many variables that it's difficult to predict what's going to happen and how to deal with it. No doubt the administration predicted oodles of things. They obviously planned if Saddam used WMD (as they had trained to use gas masks etc.), they planned to secure the oil tanks (they learned their lesson in the first Gulf War). Here is what they probably planned for after the war, and effectivly took care of:
Update the electrical system to make up for years of deterioration and neglect under Saddam Hussein. Ditto the water system.
Get the oil fields pumping again. Begin new investments in oil-field infrastructure so that Iraq's future development can be self-financing.
Establish a new and creditable currency to lay the groundwork for economic growth.
Refurbish and improve the backward physical condition of the nation's schools, and de-Nazify (so to speak) the Saddam-glorifying textbooks, so that all Iraq's children could be back in school by the first autumn. Ditto for the more than two dozen Iraqi universities, including fresh investments in new equipment, books, and supplies. Higher wages needed to be available for teachers too, who, like other professionals, had been impoverished under Saddam
"The Americans," bin Laden had once warned, "soon abandon the field at the sight of blood." This is what they're hoping for, in terms of the resistance after the war. Indeed, a big problem in Vietnam was that the enemy started to kill a few soliders a day in front of the media, in order to bring bad news daily to the public. This only fueled the protests and approval of the war effort, and we ended up losing it. The Bush administration is trying to point that out, yet nobody seems to get it.
Sure, there have been errors in the peace plan. For example, we didn't secure all of Saddam's massive ammunition dumps. We didn't secure the borders from Syria and other nations to prevent terrorists from coming in. We could of trained civilian police and get them out there faster. We didn't setup an Iraqi/American TV network and so on. But in hindsight, I think the American people will forgive those warts on an otherwise amazing war camapign.
As I said, nation-building isn't a science. We have probably learned a lot from the Iraq liberation, no doubt the military will be trained and taught the lessons of this war in order to not repeat the failures of it in the future. Besides, I think if it was a U.N. as an occupation, things would of taken much much slower, as you'd have to first fight the U.N. beaucracy and debate stuff before anything gets done. As the RAND report says, unilaterial occupations are much quicker (yet more costly) and efficent than a multilaterial one.
In addition, a lot of the things democrats have on their Iraq list is exactly what Bush is doing. He's turning over power to the Iraqis as fast as possible. He's training a civilian police as fast as possible. He's even trying to reconstruct an Iraqi army. It's not easy work, and it's easy to critize.
I also believe the American people will think electing a "new leader", as you suggest, would have a negative effect. Indeed, a lot of the Iraqis are worried about the upcoming elections (they think a democrat would pull out, or screw things up). The Iraq occupation probably won't be completed by next November's elections, so Bush's job will seem unfinished. Based upon what I hear from other people, they will want Bush to say in the white house to finish what he started. Changing the administration may (and probably would) have a negative effect in that respect.
The problem with all of that is that it flies in the face of Leon Kass. A lot of bioethics hate Leon Kass, though he is a university professor, philosopher, founding member of the Hastings Center, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute... you name it. The main problem all those bioethicists despise about Kass is that he eloquently and forcefully believes that human life has intrinsic moral value simply because it is human. This flies in the face of the predominate ideology of contemporary bioethics that disdains human exceptionalism as arbitrary, irrational, human-centric, and indeed, an act of discrimination against animals known as "speciesism."
Neither Kass nor Bush has advocated outlawing embryonic-stem-cell research. (Both do wish to ban all human cloning, including for biomedical research. But cloning is not the same thing as embryonic-stem-cell research, although many cloning advocates strive mightily to blur the distinction.)
Also, a lot of those issues you cite are banned in a lot of Europe, so it's not like it's unique to the "evil Bush administration".
Do you have any links to any NanoTech think tanks or anything which talks about your claims further? I couldn't find any critisms on any nanotech websites... (though I didn't look very long)
The current US administration acts as if they believe that the UN is an organization somewhere between the Three Stooges and the Devil Incarnate, and they usually ignore the UN's resolutions and dismiss its statements.
The Bush administration ignores U.N. Resolutions? Which would those be? Perhaps your mistaking the U.S. for Iraq, which ignored 17 U.N. Security Council Resolutions. (No blood for oil!) The Bush administration doesn't mistreat the U.N., it's the other way around. Bush couldn't even get a vote on a Resolution, without France threatening to veto. What kind of "United Nations" is this? I mean, Libya -- a country with serious human rights violations -- is the chair of the Human Rights Committee. Iran is currently the chair of the Disarmament Committee, and Iraq was next in line until it stepped down.
Since the last 55 years of the U.N.'s existance, there have been between 100 and 200 wars. The UN Security Council has given consent to only two of them, the Korean Police Action and Gulf War [One].
Everyone blames the U.S. for the North Korea problem, and nearly every other human rights violation throughout the world. Why hasen't the U.N. done anything to curb these problems? I'm no right-wing conpsiracy theorist who believes the U.N. is trying to take over the U.S., but all the U.N. does is gather and whine about their own problems or opine on ways to control the Internet, suggestions to ban guns worldwide (That doesn't stop good-ol' Kofi and his bodyguards from carrying submachine guns to protect him around the dangerous streets of New York City!) and other idiotic things.
Seriously, the model U.N. I did in highschool was more relevant than this. The Bush administration works with the U.N. all the time, as it is now trying to make Iran disarm. Nobody made the U.N. irrelevant, they made themselves irrelevant.
Last week, President Bush signed the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, an important measure which should serve as a needed stimulus for that nascent field full of potential.
Nanotechnology deals with the study and manipulation of atoms and molecules -- at about the scale of 1/100,000th of the diameter of a human hair. As its name implies, it is not a field of pure research, but rather an interdisciplinary area with many possible applications....
Nanomaterials are already being used in sunscreens and tennis rackets. The oil industry saves an estimated $12 billion each year by using molecular sieves known as zeolites to extract gasoline from crude oil....
In the future, nanotechnology coupled to biotechnology could produce a variety of beneficial products, from better sensors for agents of bioterrorism to custom-built medicines for fighting cancers. Nano-manufacturing processes could reduce waste from industrial production, and nanomaterials could be used to make power systems highly efficient....
The nation has needed this federal catalyst to fully develop the breathtaking possibilities of nanotechnology. The bill signed by Mr. Bush should serve well in widening the way.
Besides, the bill was sponsered by Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). (Incase you didn't know, the 'D' equals "Democrat").
Unless your buying into the gloom and doom from Krugman, you'll notice the economy is beginning to come around. 7.2% GDP, (some) job growth, unemployment down, productivity up. Companies are only now getting used to the growing economy, so it will be a while until job growth increases to what many people would like it to.
New technology for doing mulitsource/multithread downloads of ISOs is making Linux users on Internet2 happy.
Aww, good for those Internet2 users. All 15 of them.
The United Nations wants to control EVERYTHING
on
Imagine A UN-Run Internet
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
The United Nations, or what I would like to call the Useless Nations, wants to control the Internet now, eh? Not suprising, looking at their record:
The United Nations for a WORLD RELIGION "My hope is that this charter will be a kind of Ten Commandments, a 'Sermon on the Mount,' that provides a guide for human behavior toward the environment in the next century and beyond." -Mikhail Gorbachev
The United Nations for an INTERNATIONAL COURT The United Nations' International Criminal Court would deny Americans the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. An ICC "trial" would be decided by a panel of six or more judges, no more than one of which could be an American.
The United Nations for CONTROL OF THE WORLD's BABIES "In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." - Oceanographer Jaques Cousteau Published in the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
The United Nations for CONTROL OF THE WORLD's BABIES "We strongly endorse community initiatives... to encourage the disarming of civilians...." - Our Global Neighborhood, published in 1995 by the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance
The United Nations for CONTROL OF THE WORLD's LAND "Private land ownership... contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable." - United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976
And that's just the start of it. Soviet spy Alger Hiss was the brainchild of the United Nations, no doubt to overtake the U.S. as the world's superpower. Thank God that hasen't happened yet, but who knows... maybe the next Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich could make that happen.
Wrong. That's like saying you walked around and shot a tree with a gun, and when caught you claimed "But it was only a tree! I didn't shoot any people!", implying that you should be let loose with the gun, or go off on a luke warning.
Microsoft can do what it wants. Perhaps it has a strict policy on taking photographs of it's classified departments? I'm sure this guy has some kind of manual or list of stuff your not supposed to do.
In the end he was probably the wrong employee for Microsoft anyways. He obviously wasn't loyal to the company.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough. However, China is insignificant in terms of the War on Terror. Sure, they have nukes and they're a dictatorship. But the chinese didn't attack us on 9/11, Arabs did. The middle-east is the birthplace of Terrorism, not China. So thus the strategy to make the middle-east into a democracy would curb the terrorist threat facing the U.S.
Besides, you don't just storm into a country that has Nukes. Not unless you want to have countless casulaties. You can use sanctions and containment for those types of countries, which Reagan did to win the Cold War. (No, the Soviet Union didn't "just collapse") For Iraq, intelligence showed they had Nuclear programs but no nukes, thus you could invade and not risk casulaties. That's not to say the U.S. government didn't think he had bio/chem weapons, as there were all those drills where the troops had to put on their gas masks.
The Bush administration never said Iraq has nuclear weapons. The whole reason was to attack Iraq before it became an imminent threat. For examplem, North Korea. Back during the Clinton administration, Jimmy Carter went over there to try to curb their Nuclear capabilities. They lied right to Carter's idiotic face, and he believed them, and Clinton allowed probably the Worst U.S. President in History to represent his foreign policy for him. Then we find out, oops, North Korea indeed did not stop it's nuclear weapons programs, and has Nukes right now and is willing to use them if they have to.
Are you saying we should invade North Korea? And risk killing kabillions of U.S./Coalition troops? That was the whole reason to go to Iraq, before it represents that same situtation that were facing in North Korea.
Socialists love to blame the U.S. Government for wrecking their perfect socialist experiment. Oops, too bad that whole thing is one big ass myth.
Ah, yes, we know how successful the Hauge is with Mussolini! Saddam will just have to wait to be tried in 2021.
More came out today, from The Telegraph:It's quite silly just to dismiss Saddam as having "no connection" to 9/11. How, exactly, do you know that? Are you saying you have better intelligence than the #1 Government in the world? Give me a break.
Ooooooooooillllllll!! It's all about oil!! Our zionist, imperalist thirst for oil! That mantra is so sad it's now became cliche. Nevermind if Bush really wanted oil he could of just lifted the sanctions. Or how about that story from the NYTimes where Saddam offered Bush all his oil if he didn't attack, yet Bush still went forward with Operation Iraqi Freedom? Or why didn't we take Iraq's oil during the first Gulf War? Hmmm?
With Clinton we had China, now we have George Soros.
Your citing his governor record though. The governor of Vermont before Dean raised taxes so much there wasen't even anything left to raise. So Dean proclaimed himself some amazing "balance budgeter" when all that happened was the massive taxes just cleaned off the spending debt.
Dean may of governed "right of center" or "moderate", but he sure isn't running for President with his resume. No doubt, however, he'll just cite his resume to try to win the swing voters after he's done with the far-left primaries. That won't work, though, because everyone already knows about his far-left stances he has as a democratic candidate. Him running back to center will only make him look like a liar and a fraud.
Yea! Maybe he'll choose Grandfather Twilight as Secretary of State!
Bush was behind in NH by similar margins in 2000. Guess who won?
The Bush administration never said Saddam was an imminent threat. In fact, Bush said we couldn't wait until Saddam became an imminent threat ("... we can't wait for a mushroom cloud over New York City..."). The whole point was to remove a brutal dictator who starved and butchered his people, exploited the oil-for-food program, ignored over a dozen U.N. Resolutions, used and had WMD, attempted to assassinate a U.S. president, paid Palestinian suicide bombers, paid for and supported a terrorist training camp (including airplane hijack training) and lied to and deceived U.N. weapons inspectors. Remember North Korea? Remember good-ol' Jimmy Carter going over there and negotiating with them? Yea, "containment" worked with them alright.
Regarding Osama: What do you think they're doing now? (And have been doing) Drowning Afghanistan with troops isn't going to root out bin Laden from his cave anyways. Besides, it seems UBL is in Iran right now and was transfered there before the bombing (by the Iranian government).
Read my previous post on the Iraqi occupation and the post-war plan.Yea, and the way to heal my cut is to paste more Neosporin on it until the pain goes away. Bush has said he's willing to commit more troops, less troops; whatever to win in Iraq. The truth is that the generals in Iraq say they don't need more U.S. troops, just more Iraqi police (which is going to be 200K+ by the end of the year). It's easy to criticize, and it's easy to just say "more troops!" whenever you see a soldier die in Iraq.
- Update the electrical system to make up for years of deterioration and neglect under Saddam Hussein. Ditto the water system.
- Get the oil fields pumping again. Begin new investments in oil-field infrastructure so that Iraq's future development can be self-financing.
- Establish a new and creditable currency to lay the groundwork for economic growth.
- Refurbish and improve the backward physical condition of the nation's schools, and de-Nazify (so to speak) the Saddam-glorifying textbooks, so that all Iraq's children could be back in school by the first autumn. Ditto for the more than two dozen Iraqi universities, including fresh investments in new equipment, books, and supplies. Higher wages needed to be available for teachers too, who, like other professionals, had been impoverished under Saddam
"The Americans," bin Laden had once warned, "soon abandon the field at the sight of blood." This is what they're hoping for, in terms of the resistance after the war. Indeed, a big problem in Vietnam was that the enemy started to kill a few soliders a day in front of the media, in order to bring bad news daily to the public. This only fueled the protests and approval of the war effort, and we ended up losing it. The Bush administration is trying to point that out, yet nobody seems to get it.Sure, there have been errors in the peace plan. For example, we didn't secure all of Saddam's massive ammunition dumps. We didn't secure the borders from Syria and other nations to prevent terrorists from coming in. We could of trained civilian police and get them out there faster. We didn't setup an Iraqi/American TV network and so on. But in hindsight, I think the American people will forgive those warts on an otherwise amazing war camapign.
As I said, nation-building isn't a science. We have probably learned a lot from the Iraq liberation, no doubt the military will be trained and taught the lessons of this war in order to not repeat the failures of it in the future. Besides, I think if it was a U.N. as an occupation, things would of taken much much slower, as you'd have to first fight the U.N. beaucracy and debate stuff before anything gets done. As the RAND report says, unilaterial occupations are much quicker (yet more costly) and efficent than a multilaterial one.
In addition, a lot of the things democrats have on their Iraq list is exactly what Bush is doing. He's turning over power to the Iraqis as fast as possible. He's training a civilian police as fast as possible. He's even trying to reconstruct an Iraqi army. It's not easy work, and it's easy to critize.
I also believe the American people will think electing a "new leader", as you suggest, would have a negative effect. Indeed, a lot of the Iraqis are worried about the upcoming elections (they think a democrat would pull out, or screw things up). The Iraq occupation probably won't be completed by next November's elections, so Bush's job will seem unfinished. Based upon what I hear from other people, they will want Bush to say in the white house to finish what he started. Changing the administration may (and probably would) have a negative effect in that respect.
The problem with all of that is that it flies in the face of Leon Kass. A lot of bioethics hate Leon Kass, though he is a university professor, philosopher, founding member of the Hastings Center, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute ... you name it. The main problem all those bioethicists despise about Kass is that he eloquently and forcefully believes that human life has intrinsic moral value simply because it is human. This flies in the face of the predominate ideology of contemporary bioethics that disdains human exceptionalism as arbitrary, irrational, human-centric, and indeed, an act of discrimination against animals known as "speciesism."
BTW, everyone dismisses Kass a "Southern Baptist" neo-con right-wing whacko, yet he's Jewish.
Neither Kass nor Bush has advocated outlawing embryonic-stem-cell research. (Both do wish to ban all human cloning, including for biomedical research. But cloning is not the same thing as embryonic-stem-cell research, although many cloning advocates strive mightily to blur the distinction.)
Also, a lot of those issues you cite are banned in a lot of Europe, so it's not like it's unique to the "evil Bush administration".
Yea... liberating 51 million people, using expensive satellite-guided missiles to reduce civilian casulaties... what monsters they are.
Do you have any links to any NanoTech think tanks or anything which talks about your claims further? I couldn't find any critisms on any nanotech websites... (though I didn't look very long)
Since the last 55 years of the U.N.'s existance, there have been between 100 and 200 wars. The UN Security Council has given consent to only two of them, the Korean Police Action and Gulf War [One].
Everyone blames the U.S. for the North Korea problem, and nearly every other human rights violation throughout the world. Why hasen't the U.N. done anything to curb these problems? I'm no right-wing conpsiracy theorist who believes the U.N. is trying to take over the U.S., but all the U.N. does is gather and whine about their own problems or opine on ways to control the Internet, suggestions to ban guns worldwide (That doesn't stop good-ol' Kofi and his bodyguards from carrying submachine guns to protect him around the dangerous streets of New York City!) and other idiotic things.
Seriously, the model U.N. I did in highschool was more relevant than this. The Bush administration works with the U.N. all the time, as it is now trying to make Iran disarm. Nobody made the U.N. irrelevant, they made themselves irrelevant.
Oh well, goodbye Karma.
Besides, the bill was sponsered by Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). (Incase you didn't know, the 'D' equals "Democrat").
Aww, what peaceful little protesters they are too. (That's liquid feces, BTW)
You are aware that Firefly is being made into a motion picture Movie and that the series will be returning to FOX with all of it's original cast, right? If not, Merry Christmas.
Unless your buying into the gloom and doom from Krugman, you'll notice the economy is beginning to come around. 7.2% GDP, (some) job growth, unemployment down, productivity up. Companies are only now getting used to the growing economy, so it will be a while until job growth increases to what many people would like it to.
CISCO says it's stronger than ever, HP says it's profits have doubled... the tech buzz is back.
It looks like good news for Bush (and his tax cuts), and bad news for democrats.
Aww, good for those Internet2 users. All 15 of them.
The United Nations, or what I would like to call the Useless Nations, wants to control the Internet now, eh? Not suprising, looking at their record:
... to encourage the disarming of civilians...."
... contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."
The United Nations for a WORLD RELIGION
"My hope is that this charter will be a kind of Ten Commandments, a 'Sermon on the Mount,' that provides a guide for human behavior toward the environment in the next century and beyond."
-Mikhail Gorbachev
The United Nations for an INTERNATIONAL COURT
The United Nations' International Criminal Court would deny Americans the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. An ICC "trial" would be decided by a panel of six or more judges, no more than one of which could be an American.
The United Nations for CONTROL OF THE WORLD's BABIES
"In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."
- Oceanographer Jaques Cousteau Published in the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
The United Nations for CONTROL OF THE WORLD's BABIES
"We strongly endorse community initiatives
- Our Global Neighborhood, published in 1995 by the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance
The United Nations for CONTROL OF THE WORLD's LAND
"Private land ownership
- United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976
And that's just the start of it. Soviet spy Alger Hiss was the brainchild of the United Nations, no doubt to overtake the U.S. as the world's superpower. Thank God that hasen't happened yet, but who knows... maybe the next Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich could make that happen.
I said Saddam & 9/11, not al Qaeda. Al Qaeda =! 9/11. In fact, there is evidence that Saddam *DID* deal with al Qaeda. Duh, everyone knows that.
I'm talking about the link between the September 11th Terrorist attacks and Saddam.
Here, read this.
I said link to 9/11, not Al Quada.
White House hype machine?
Please cite me where Bush said that Iraq/Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
Thanks.
Wrong. That's like saying you walked around and shot a tree with a gun, and when caught you claimed "But it was only a tree! I didn't shoot any people!", implying that you should be let loose with the gun, or go off on a luke warning.
Microsoft can do what it wants. Perhaps it has a strict policy on taking photographs of it's classified departments? I'm sure this guy has some kind of manual or list of stuff your not supposed to do.
In the end he was probably the wrong employee for Microsoft anyways. He obviously wasn't loyal to the company.