i'd call it the Food for IP program. like food for oil, but not corrupt.
Oy, does anyone even understand what the oil for food program was? I feel as though I've explained a hundred times. The oil for food program was initially proposed and crafted by the United States and implemented by the Security Council sanctions committee, of which the United States was an integral stakeholder. The program allowed Iraq to sell some of it's oil for money to buy food and resources. Distribution of that money, however, was entirely controlled by the sanctions committee, not Saddam (it would be a little self-defeating to give him control now wouldn't it?). Of the revenues generated, some went to kuwait as repayment for damages etc. and the rest was used for food, resources and rebuilding equipment. Even distribution of those things was controlled by the sanctions committee. Now if anything happened outside of these controlled transactions (and it seems quite evident that it did), that would be outside the scope of the oil for food program and would have nothing to do with the program, its effectiveness or corruption. Any such out of scope transaction would simply be some country violating the international sanctions against Iraq. Still a violation, but nothing to do with the oil for food program. I don't understand why people keep complaining about the oil for food program when it was run by the US!? Or perhaps I have too high expectations in thinking that people should understand what the hell they're talking about...
Well I disagree. I think both should be doing their utmost to destroy the other project. I mean, isn't that the point of the split in the first place? Because you're absolutely right and the others are absolutely wrong... and they're assholes. [/sarcasm]
Bad form self-reply yada yada... I just saw something on the news about opening the markets for rice in South Korea. The problems with this are similar to the problems involved with accepting food aid. The idea that "aid" is given with harmful intent (specifically, weaking the local production of similar products and progressively create a captive market) but it's a reality that's become far more profitable for the aid-giving country with the advent of IP protected GM foods.
The US solution to this problem is to provide GMO seeds, which require a license to use. The Iraqis don't have much choice in the matter...
The use of food aid for strategic gain is common. The typical course of action for the US is to give food aid that includes GM plants and crops. There are countries that refuse to accept this (much to the dismay of the US), in favour of keeping good relations with the EU (which tries to control distribution/use of GM crops). There may be little choice in Iraq, not necessarilly because of the dire need, but more because of the government's relation to the occupying power.
Coooome oooooon! Not even a mention of Canada there! It mentioned Sydney but not Toronto or Montreal? You know we *are* part of the G8 (Australia isn't). We are the US's biggest trading partner. The Oscar winning Chicago was shot in Toronto. We were also atop the Human Development Index for a number of years. I know it's easy to forget about us Canadians, but we'll forgive you for it this time...
Unless, of course, you're the US, in which case you can stomp around the world installing dictators and deposing democratically elected leaders all you like.
Now to be fair, the US isn't the only country that has done this. And, as other countries grow in prominence, it won't be the last to do so either. And it doesn't matter which party is in power either because the Dems support illegal invasions and overthrows just like the GOP. There's really very little difference in the end goals of the foreign policy of Democrats and Republicans. This is, I think, one of the reasons that Iran endorsed Bush for president. Both Bush and Kerry will seek the same goals, though the means to those ends may differ. Bush struts around insulting everyone and driving everyone away from the US. This can ultimately weaken the US position internationally. Kerry will try to acheive the same goals, but won't go out of his way (as Bush has) to alienate traditional allies. This will maintain, or strengthen the US position (compared with its current status). I believe that's the reason that Iran endorsed Bush because, in the long run, he's far worse for America and, they believe, better for the rest of the world. Effects of his reelection in the short run, however, are another matter.
Greg Palast is a fantastic journalist. If you read his book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy you'll see what I mean. He seems to have a knack for getting incriminating information and confidential documents. He's certainly not the only one that can do this, but most others are be dismissed as crackpots, while Palast appears in mainstream (all be it non-American) media (BBC and he writes for a UK paper as well). And does anyone really doubt that Dubya would try to pull anything he can to stay president? He didn't have the popular vote last time, he may or may not have it this time. While he's leading in the polls, the modern republican party doesn't seem like the kind of group that likes to leave things to chance...
Perhaps brother Malcolm said it best: "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone lays a hand on you, send him to the cemetery."
I might be able to convince another American that it's a good idea, and I might even be able to convince a German or a Finn. But as an American how could I convince a Chetchen, or an Iranian, or a North Korean?
How about just convicing one American? The president...
Stupid American! We have storen yor trade secrets aready! We now have factories that are assembring *your* most powerfu weapon ever. Frickin sharks with frickin rasers on their heads! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Yours trury, Kim Jong-Il
With my sincerest apologies to Dr. Evil, South Park, and all the people in North Korea (where millions are suffering from starvation...)
Do you realize how freaking hard it is to totally boycott these billion dollar mega-companies? And I'm talking from experience here... I decided a long time ago to never support cigarette companies and not buy anything made by a cigarette company. Well Kraft Foods is owned by Altria, which used to be Phillip Morris (one of the tobacco giants), do you realize how much stuff is made by Kraft!? They own Post cereals, and Mr.Christie cookies, Jell-o and God knows what else. But if you're going to boycott Sinclair, what about the media outlets it's affiliated with? What about NBC? NBC is owned by RCA which is in turn owned by GE, and GE makes damn near everything from tiny electric gizmos to airplane engines. Just be careful when you commit to something like this... it get real complicated, real fast.
Newton, outside of his professional work, suffered from depression most of his life. He was also very afraid of his own homosexual tendencies. To my knowledge he didn't have many long standing relationships. Greatest perhaps, though I'm not sure he would have thought himself one of the luckiest.
Yes, I'm incorrect in that, but if you don't include that first 10 years or so, then it's definitely the US more than any other. In fact Russia used its veto more than 100 times in the first 20 years, and the US didn't use any. But the US has also recently used the threat of a veto to prevent discussion of issues from being pursued by the Security Council.
Russia 80 from 1945 - 1955 Russia 41 from 1956 - now China 4 since 1972, 1 before then France 18 Britain 32
In the past 20 years China has used 2 vetoes; France, 3; Russia, 4; the United Kingdom, 10; and the United States, 42.
But you're still right, the final total from 1945 is higher for Russia/USSR.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetota b. htm
Fer Chrissakes, Sudan, a government currently undergoing an organized campaign of genocide against its own citizenry,sits at the head of the UN Human Rights Commission. And what does the General Assembly do about such a travesty? It steadfastly refuses to pass a resolution condemning antisemitism.
What the hell does it matter what the General Assembly does? Nothing passed by the General Assembly is binding. I agree that the UN is obsolete, but not because of the reasons you're stating. The UN is obsolote because all power rests in the hands of the Security Council, and the power there lies only in the hands of the countries that hold veto power (US, UK, France, China, Russia). And to even suggest that the UN is 'anti-american' is so utterly ignorant. The US government is totally anti-UN. It doesn't recognize the ICC, ignores international law, and only takes a glance at the UN whenever it is politically expedient to do so. Of the veto-wielding nations on the Security Council, the US uses its veto power the most BY FAR. As for the General Assembly, it has passed many resolutions that have done nothing because they can't be enforced. 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? All the international bodies that include the voices of the majority are ignored by the most powerful countries when they give anything but total agreement. Even the WTO, which the US uses to condemn others, almost universally condemned US sanctions against Cuba (only the US, Israel and one other country voted against), but the US couldn't care less about that vote since it didn't agree with its policy. These international bodies are obsolete because they are totally at the mercy of the whims of the most powerful nations. If they were truly international bodies, where both the minor players with bad records (like Sudan) and the major players with bad records (all veto wielding nations) would be kept in check by all the other nations on the planet (there are 191 member countries including those mentioned).
While I agree almost completely with the parent, I don't think you can make an argument about karma here. I don't think responsibility for the violence and suffering in the word necessarily causes more violence and suffering on the perpetrators. In fact, in most (if not virtually all) cases, it is individuals not directly linked to the conflict that suffer. Iraqis are suffering and dying now because of the US occupation. They were suffering and dying before because of sanctions, bombing and Saddam. And before the first invasion they weren't all suffering (physically anyway), but some were because of Saddam. And, one thing that is always forgotten, is that those that suffered because of Saddam did so because of our help to him. Now I just said 'our help', but it wasn't you or me. And I don't blame the average US soldier for the terrible strife of the Iraqi people. US soldiers are dying too, but certainly not anyone among Bush's family. Or Cheney's family... or Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. What was that statistic? That only one person in the house/senate had a family member in the army. Similarly, Putin and the Russian government have inflicted intense suffering in Chechnya. And when some vile individuals there wish to inflict suffering on others, it's not Putin that receives it, it's the people of Baslan. What have the individuals that really suffer done to receive such poor karma? Bush, Putin, officials and terrorists are the ones who are trolling.
Actually, with the hydrogen being in stable fuelcells,
Ahhh, good old/., where people feel compelled to post before rtfa. The car doesn't use fuel cells for the engine. It's an hydrogen combustion engine. The article says that BMW is researching fuel cells as well, but it's concentrating on combustion engines "because the sum total of its features and characteristics offers the largest number of advantages and benefits all in one."
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. phew... only pissed all over the laptop... that was close.
i'd call it the Food for IP program. like food for oil, but not corrupt.
Oy, does anyone even understand what the oil for food program was? I feel as though I've explained a hundred times.
The oil for food program was initially proposed and crafted by the United States and implemented by the Security Council sanctions committee, of which the United States was an integral stakeholder.
The program allowed Iraq to sell some of it's oil for money to buy food and resources. Distribution of that money, however, was entirely controlled by the sanctions committee, not Saddam (it would be a little self-defeating to give him control now wouldn't it?). Of the revenues generated, some went to kuwait as repayment for damages etc. and the rest was used for food, resources and rebuilding equipment. Even distribution of those things was controlled by the sanctions committee.
Now if anything happened outside of these controlled transactions (and it seems quite evident that it did), that would be outside the scope of the oil for food program and would have nothing to do with the program, its effectiveness or corruption. Any such out of scope transaction would simply be some country violating the international sanctions against Iraq. Still a violation, but nothing to do with the oil for food program.
I don't understand why people keep complaining about the oil for food program when it was run by the US!? Or perhaps I have too high expectations in thinking that people should understand what the hell they're talking about...
Well I disagree. I think both should be doing their utmost to destroy the other project. I mean, isn't that the point of the split in the first place? Because you're absolutely right and the others are absolutely wrong... and they're assholes.
[/sarcasm]
Bad form self-reply yada yada...
I just saw something on the news about opening the markets for rice in South Korea. The problems with this are similar to the problems involved with accepting food aid. The idea that "aid" is given with harmful intent (specifically, weaking the local production of similar products and progressively create a captive market) but it's a reality that's become far more profitable for the aid-giving country with the advent of IP protected GM foods.
http://www.american.edu/TED/KORRICE.HTM
The US solution to this problem is to provide GMO seeds, which require a license to use. The Iraqis don't have much choice in the matter...
The use of food aid for strategic gain is common. The typical course of action for the US is to give food aid that includes GM plants and crops. There are countries that refuse to accept this (much to the dismay of the US), in favour of keeping good relations with the EU (which tries to control distribution/use of GM crops). There may be little choice in Iraq, not necessarilly because of the dire need, but more because of the government's relation to the occupying power.
Coooome oooooon! Not even a mention of Canada there!
It mentioned Sydney but not Toronto or Montreal? You know we *are* part of the G8 (Australia isn't). We are the US's biggest trading partner. The Oscar winning Chicago was shot in Toronto. We were also atop the Human Development Index for a number of years.
I know it's easy to forget about us Canadians, but we'll forgive you for it this time...
Unless, of course, you're the US, in which case you can stomp around the world installing dictators and deposing democratically elected leaders all you like.
Now to be fair, the US isn't the only country that has done this. And, as other countries grow in prominence, it won't be the last to do so either.
And it doesn't matter which party is in power either because the Dems support illegal invasions and overthrows just like the GOP. There's really very little difference in the end goals of the foreign policy of Democrats and Republicans.
This is, I think, one of the reasons that Iran endorsed Bush for president. Both Bush and Kerry will seek the same goals, though the means to those ends may differ. Bush struts around insulting everyone and driving everyone away from the US. This can ultimately weaken the US position internationally.
Kerry will try to acheive the same goals, but won't go out of his way (as Bush has) to alienate traditional allies. This will maintain, or strengthen the US position (compared with its current status).
I believe that's the reason that Iran endorsed Bush because, in the long run, he's far worse for America and, they believe, better for the rest of the world. Effects of his reelection in the short run, however, are another matter.
I know all my favorite buttorrent trackers are going under ground. This for example...
Well we know what you're downloading now don't we...
How about some colo^Hin?
Greg Palast is a fantastic journalist. If you read his book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy you'll see what I mean. He seems to have a knack for getting incriminating information and confidential documents. He's certainly not the only one that can do this, but most others are be dismissed as crackpots, while Palast appears in mainstream (all be it non-American) media (BBC and he writes for a UK paper as well).
And does anyone really doubt that Dubya would try to pull anything he can to stay president? He didn't have the popular vote last time, he may or may not have it this time. While he's leading in the polls, the modern republican party doesn't seem like the kind of group that likes to leave things to chance...
What does it profit America to gain the whole world, and lose its soul?
I don't think
those are
the type of
profits
they are
worried
about.
Perhaps brother Malcolm said it best:
"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone lays a hand on you, send him to the cemetery."
I might be able to convince another American that it's a good idea, and I might even be able to convince a German or a Finn. But as an American how could I convince a Chetchen, or an Iranian, or a North Korean?
How about just convicing one American? The president...
but they haven't pulled off anything in the U.S. since 9/11.
Anthrax in the mail?
Did they catch anyone?
Stupid American!
We have storen yor trade secrets aready!
We now have factories that are assembring *your* most powerfu weapon ever. Frickin sharks with frickin rasers on their heads! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
Yours trury,
Kim Jong-Il
With my sincerest apologies to Dr. Evil, South Park, and all the people in North Korea (where millions are suffering from starvation...)
Do you realize how freaking hard it is to totally boycott these billion dollar mega-companies? And I'm talking from experience here...
I decided a long time ago to never support cigarette companies and not buy anything made by a cigarette company. Well Kraft Foods is owned by Altria, which used to be Phillip Morris (one of the tobacco giants), do you realize how much stuff is made by Kraft!? They own Post cereals, and Mr.Christie cookies, Jell-o and God knows what else.
But if you're going to boycott Sinclair, what about the media outlets it's affiliated with? What about NBC? NBC is owned by RCA which is in turn owned by GE, and GE makes damn near everything from tiny electric gizmos to airplane engines.
Just be careful when you commit to something like this... it get real complicated, real fast.
Newton, outside of his professional work, suffered from depression most of his life. He was also very afraid of his own homosexual tendencies. To my knowledge he didn't have many long standing relationships. Greatest perhaps, though I'm not sure he would have thought himself one of the luckiest.
Yes, I'm incorrect in that, but if you don't include that first 10 years or so, then it's definitely the US more than any other. In fact Russia used its veto more than 100 times in the first 20 years, and the US didn't use any. But the US has also recently used the threat of a veto to prevent discussion of issues from being pursued by the Security Council.
a b. htm
Russia 80 from 1945 - 1955
Russia 41 from 1956 - now
China 4 since 1972, 1 before then
France 18
Britain 32
In the past 20 years China has used 2 vetoes; France, 3; Russia, 4; the United Kingdom, 10; and the United States, 42.
But you're still right, the final total from 1945 is higher for Russia/USSR.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetot
Not sure how this troll was modded insightful. Masking racism or prejudice with mild sarcasm doesn't remove the prejudice.
Fer Chrissakes, Sudan, a government currently undergoing an organized campaign of genocide against its own citizenry ,sits at the head of the UN Human Rights Commission. And what does the General Assembly do about such a travesty? It steadfastly refuses to pass a resolution condemning antisemitism.
What the hell does it matter what the General Assembly does? Nothing passed by the General Assembly is binding. I agree that the UN is obsolete, but not because of the reasons you're stating. The UN is obsolote because all power rests in the hands of the Security Council, and the power there lies only in the hands of the countries that hold veto power (US, UK, France, China, Russia).
And to even suggest that the UN is 'anti-american' is so utterly ignorant. The US government is totally anti-UN. It doesn't recognize the ICC, ignores international law, and only takes a glance at the UN whenever it is politically expedient to do so. Of the veto-wielding nations on the Security Council, the US uses its veto power the most BY FAR.
As for the General Assembly, it has passed many resolutions that have done nothing because they can't be enforced. 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?
All the international bodies that include the voices of the majority are ignored by the most powerful countries when they give anything but total agreement. Even the WTO, which the US uses to condemn others, almost universally condemned US sanctions against Cuba (only the US, Israel and one other country voted against), but the US couldn't care less about that vote since it didn't agree with its policy.
These international bodies are obsolete because they are totally at the mercy of the whims of the most powerful nations. If they were truly international bodies, where both the minor players with bad records (like Sudan) and the major players with bad records (all veto wielding nations) would be kept in check by all the other nations on the planet (there are 191 member countries including those mentioned).
Animals, politics, what's the difference?
This was first suggested by Senator Orrin Hatch - R who has Qualcomm as a major financier.
Someone had it reposted after their death...
Wanted to go out with a dupe.
While I agree almost completely with the parent, I don't think you can make an argument about karma here.
I don't think responsibility for the violence and suffering in the word necessarily causes more violence and suffering on the perpetrators. In fact, in most (if not virtually all) cases, it is individuals not directly linked to the conflict that suffer.
Iraqis are suffering and dying now because of the US occupation. They were suffering and dying before because of sanctions, bombing and Saddam. And before the first invasion they weren't all suffering (physically anyway), but some were because of Saddam. And, one thing that is always forgotten, is that those that suffered because of Saddam did so because of our help to him.
Now I just said 'our help', but it wasn't you or me. And I don't blame the average US soldier for the terrible strife of the Iraqi people. US soldiers are dying too, but certainly not anyone among Bush's family. Or Cheney's family... or Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. What was that statistic? That only one person in the house/senate had a family member in the army.
Similarly, Putin and the Russian government have inflicted intense suffering in Chechnya. And when some vile individuals there wish to inflict suffering on others, it's not Putin that receives it, it's the people of Baslan.
What have the individuals that really suffer done to receive such poor karma? Bush, Putin, officials and terrorists are the ones who are trolling.
Actually, with the hydrogen being in stable fuelcells,
/., where people feel compelled to post before rtfa. The car doesn't use fuel cells for the engine. It's an hydrogen combustion engine.
Ahhh, good old
The article says that BMW is researching fuel cells as well, but it's concentrating on combustion engines "because the sum total of its features and characteristics offers the largest number of advantages and benefits all in one."