I'm not saying it is a good thing, I'm saying it is not a bad thing (noting wrong). The problem that makes your sentiment moot is that even without the lobbyist, it still exists.
You see, if all lobbyist fell into the ocean today, you still need to do something to get the politicians attention. Chances are, most people wanting to do so won't understand without a lot of additional education how to do this buy in any means. It will still cost crap loads of money to get their attention to make yourself heard above all the others clambering for something.
Think about this, you have a group of concerned citizens over the poverty in the US. Lets call them the GCCPU group. Now, lobbyist are gone so you need to send everyone to Washington to talk to their representatives about welfare entitlements. That costs money and the richest group can send the most people. Well lets supposed they decided to run commercials on TV instead, an opposition group runs counter commercials describing how they changed the GCCPU is asking for will place more people into poverty plus damage the working people of America. We'll call this second group the Evil Rich White Guy Association or ERWGA. Now who makes the biggest impact? The richest group who can spend the most money effectivly. The problem you mentioned is still there.
Now suppose an industry trade group representing hundreds of corporations which in turn represent every shareholder that owns part of the corporation, decides that not only is the GCCPU changes bad, but this would be a good opportunity to change a few other things they see wrong with the situation. Let's call these people BigOil (not to be confused with the oil companies). Now, the CEO of each of these corporations and the share holders, some of which may belong to any of the other groups would have to go to Washington to talk to their representatives. And with the corporate structure, you would pretty much be bound to support the move or you would be acting against the interest of the corporation and facing some other possible issues (forced stock sales, legal and civil damages and so on).
Or they take the route of commercials on TV too and build off of the other group's concerns (ERWGA). So we got three groups of people with three different views and what had changed without lobbyist? Only the mechanism in which it gets done. The money is still there and the richer party still has more persuasion. In the end, the rich still win.
Now there is a loophole to this but it's also true with lobbyist present too. Lets assume that the issue is one that is so heinous that the majority of Americans automagically appose it anyways (a modern holocaust, molestation of 5 year old kids, dumping toxic wastes and raw sewage in the drinking water supply). Well, the less rich (which is actually more rich if combined but there is no common connection) people of America will have little problem getting their point across and getting the government to do something. But lobbyist wouldn't be needed in this situation either so it sort of steps outside the mold that lobbyist create.
In the end, without lobbyists, all that happens is that things get more expensive and complicated. The person with the most money tends to be the person who will prevail in much the same sense as it happened with lobbyists.
People like Charlie Pitts deserve chances. Not every homeless guy is the "bum" stereotype we see so much in our media, and many have genuine talents and can contribute a lot. It's just that we don't manage our available talents well in the US at all right now.
People can make their own chances and create their own opportunities. They don't need to sit around waiting for others to hand them out. Of course this gets more difficult in anally retarded and overly regulated states like California where you need a license to do just about anything other then be employed by someone (self employment and contract work). But there is no reason why anyone shouldn't be able to do something on their own to gain employment even if it's just odd jobs.
I got an account with a law firm once just for testifying about some technical aspects for the apposing council. I created that chance by doing something, the other law firm probably would have never bothered with me without that.
But you don't need some crafty situation like that to happen. If your field is in tech, then put a simple add in the paper for computer repair then show up and actually do it. If you have a truck, do garbage removal and haul junk away for people, if your capable of physical labor without a truck, price a rental into the mix. There are all sorts of things that someone can do to create opportunities and chances on their own. If newspaper adds are too expensive, flyers at laundromats, church bulletin boards, community centers and so on work too.
As for managing the availible talents in the US, that is an individual choice not a government or anyone else'. You don't want a third party managing your talents at all. I have worked at many different jobs over my lifetime which range from restaurant drone to roofer to general construction and rough framing to truck driver to heavy equipment operator to hazardous material cleanup to tech consultant plus I have owned several businesses all started from scratch and are either thriving to this day or sold out to partners or other companies thriving to this day. If someone was managing our talents, then I would have had to ask permission to change talents and most likely would be stuck doing something I decided I didn't want to do anymore. I doubt I would have been able to open my own businesses either.
You have the potential to lose a lot of freedom and happiness with others managing your talents. In a few years (5-10), I think I'm going to take a stab at becoming a lawyer concentrating in tech related law. That's one of those talents I don't have and would have to ask someone for permission to enter into if we had someone managing talents in the US. Just because others don't use their freedoms doesn't mean we should have them taken away.
I was going from Ohio to New York city to pick a friend up (and to spend a week) then we were supposed to road trip to Los Angeles California to meet another friend getting out of the military. My car got stolen in NYC along with all our possessions. This was back in the early 90's and we decided to just hitchhike to CA and get a rental car there to come back home while my insurance company was sorting out the damage.
We traveled in much the same way, We had probably two changes of cloths, some rope and a couple of small tarps we used to make tents from. We probably walked a little over 100 miles or so total and found rides for the rest of the 2500+ mile trip. When we made it to New Mexico, a cousin gave us a place to stay then drove us the rest of the way in. It took a little over a week to get there.
It was quite a bit of fun actually. We even ran into other doing the same thing for different reasons. Worrying about getting there took a lot off my mind over losing my car and everything in it. We called in every day to see if they found it but it was never reported as found (*ever).
This reminds me of a neighbor who lost his job when on of the local factories moved out of state. New opportunities were all around him but he refused to work unless he was in management as he was before losing his old job.
Eventually, they lost their home and his wife's father purchased it in some foreclosure deal so they wouldn't move in with him. It took a divorce before he decided to just get work and it turned out that after about 5 years at the construction job he took, he started making more money then he thought possible in low-mid level management.
It seems that as long as there is enough of an excuse to hold out, people will. When that excuse or ability to hold out is removed, the pride goes away and things happen. He says he is happier then he ever was in management to boot so it makes you wonder what would have been if he would have went with something else earlier.
The reason for high production is so we don't experience famine because of drought or natural catastrophes.
The US used to attempt to coordinate agriculture production to coincide with use expectations but when we started doing this, we found that area droughts, river flooding, hurricanes and other natural disasters would cause food shortages. So we shifted from attempting to farm just enough to using the strengths of geographical separation of the different states in order to account for the loss of a certain percentage of food supplies. Last I heard, this was about 20 percent in grains and roughly 6-10 percent in meats.
This need to over produce was realized after the effects of the great depressions when some of the first farm subsidies were implemented and rejected by the supreme court as unconstitutional. Instead of a natural disaster making food scare, it was an economic disaster on top of a natural disaster(the dust bowl) that caused agriculture production to threaten the security of the country.
Now this overage was encouraged by the US government buying the excess to keep market prices up and then attempting to resell it when prices raised again. We found that this screwed the pooch so to say because we originally did it only with cotton and wheat and all the other farmers started switching because of a guaranteed bottom price. Eventually, we stopped that and started using it to send aid to other countries. WWII's ends worked out well because of the air lift of rations into Germany and the rebuilding of Europe gave an outlet for this. By the 1960's we started giving the food out in a government pantry program that eventually turned into the welfare system and because this was still within the US, we encouraged more growth and then gave the food to African and south American nations which were suffering from the same problems we were defending again. This is how the "we feed the world" saying came into play.
After we started seeing an over production and market prices started falling, the government started paying farmers partial market price to not raise certain crops and animals for a few years with the idea that prices would stabilize and people would keep their farms and it wouldn't be too hard to kick them back into production of shortages came about. Well, we probably all have heard the story of the farmer who wanted to make money by not raising pigs or not growing corn just like his neighbor does. This was a sentiment where people were upset because farms not producing were making more money then farms that were and the costs of this was being passed on to the consumer making the demand even less.
Now the idea is that we pay subsidies to specific farms based on their production capabilities and geographical locations. There is also a more open international market that some crops are redirected to. The US still maintains a year supply for strategic purposed of quite a few crops but recently there has been a push to eliminate these programs. If you divide the US into 5 segments with equal amounts of population, the idea is to have one segment completely fail at producing food and still have enough from the other segments so that no one starves and the costs of the food to the consumer doesn't skyrocket. I consider the a matter of national security, some see it as a waste. I know I'm not running out of food and I'm comfortable that they won't either. But as we seen with the Mississippi river flooding a year or two ago and all the crops being lost, no one starved, food didn't double or triple in price because of it, and things seemed to work out as planed.
Can you tell me which lawyers who names are on the brief actually worked for RIAA, MAPP, or have some other connection to them?
I don't think this paper says anything about the DOJ nor the RIAA lawyers because I can't find one of their names behind the brief submitted. Chances are, the EX RIAA lawyers never saw the brief, it was probably reviewed for accuracy by some other low level lawyers and approved by some mid level management.
It's nice to see things happening the way they are meant to happen. While the DoJ employees are not elected by the people, they are appointed by people who are.
Your more or less right here except that the vast majority of DOJ employees don't change jobs when new leaders come in. It's entirely possible that people working for President Carter are still employed at the DOJ and remained employed under different presidents and parties.
They are, in theory, supposed to represent the will and needs of the people, not corporations or lobbyists with money.
Here, you are just wrong. The DOJ is supposed to enfore the law period. They don't represent anything but the law as it is written and how courts reconcile that to the constitution. The DOJ can push for an interpretation the administration has laid out if there is shacky grounds but they in no way "reflect the will of the people".
In fact, the federal government was never indented to address the will of the people directly. The federal government in the US is only supposed to represent the states in matters of state (foreign relations) and matters between the states with a limited few other things specifically written into the constitution. You can see how obvious this is by simply reading the constitution. The senate was originally appointed by the state, the president was/still is appointed by the state, and the house of representative which all tax raises are supposed to originate in was the representation of the people. The idea was so that the people had a say in government not so that government served the people. The federal government serves nothing but the offices they hold. Now don't get me wrong, the office covers the people but they also cover so many other things like corporations which provide jobs, trade between the states and with foreign countries and so on.
You also need to understand that a: corporations are nothing more then collections of people who invested in a concept but are shielded from it's performance to some extent by their lack of participation in the company. b: Lobbyist are nothing more then people who have familiarity with the congress critters and take points directly to them instead of leaving it to them to figure out on their own. There is nothing wrong with lobbyist because they allow single representation of groups of people with no political clout. Without them, no one's voice will be heard more, nothing will be different, except those groups will have to spend the money directly on getting the congress critters attention some other way instead of giving it to someone who already has their attention.
es, they confiscated US property obtained by bribing the former Cuban dictators.
Wow, you sure are a history revisionist. Here is a hint, when the US threw the spanish out, we have been friendly with CUBA ever since until Castro came along. There was no bribery needed dumbass.
And US had missile bases all around Russia during the cold war, why would you expect different?
And you point is what? I said that was cause to be pissed at Cuba and Castro, not that it didn't happen. Or are you one of those fuck tards who think we shouldn't take any actions against those who threaten us? And yes, installing nuclear missiles in a specific location just to be able to strike the land of your country is a threat.
And, I'm from America, but not the US.;)
So you identify you statesmanship and nationality with an entire fucking continent. Good job there buddy.
There are at least eight independent nations in north America (more if you count Indian reservations and Iceland and Greenland and other islands as part of the continent) and around 13 or so south America countries. So when talking about relations between two specific countries, you seem to think it is somehow pertinent to claim that you are from one of 20 some different countries except the only one with America in it's name. Could you please tell me why it was important for you to shift from the topic of two countries interacting the the entire hemispherical continental shelf? Do you envy America that much and hate your own nationality so much that you need to pull confusing stunts like that in order to feel better about yourself? As if finding some way to claim you are an American, Not North or Central American, not South American but good ol American somehow elevates your status or something. Well, it doesn't, it only makes you look foolish. Please tell me which country it is your living in that your so ashamed of.
Uuhhhh... how about Donald Rumsfeld plastering reports to the president with scriptures that "supported" his expansionist policies? Is that enough proof that the bible is being used in policy making? Oh and here is Hillary Clinton doing it at home, in case somebody thinks I am picking on republicans. And these took all of 8 seconds worth of yahoo time. if i actually wanted to spend time on it I can plaster a 500 page document from one end to the other with supported links and not run out.
Wow, you are more stupid then I originally thought. You link to _blogs_ which take things out of context and present it in a biased and skewed way. First of all, the bible quote put in the daily briefings were after the war started and was intended to support Bush "spiritually" at a time when casualties were high in Iraq. That does not imply policy was made from them or that they had any bearing on policy other then to aid Bush in reading about the losses our soldiers were suffering. Second, the Jesus quote by Clinton was nothing more then a political tactic intended sway public opinion. It had nothing to do with policy being set, it had to do with gaining support for or against policy already in place. To take it any other way is nothing more then your imagination getting the best of you which is obvious from your postings. I asked for the policies and you give me links to blog posts taking how politicians deal with their decisions and manipulate the public completely out of context.
While I'm at it, why don't you show where this expansion has been? You mentioned expansionist policies yet both Iraq and Afghanistan has been turned over to the people of those countries and only point to blogs expressing opinions that take things out of context. Is there anything in your worldview that is based in reality?
And the fact that we were total bastards during Jefferson's times doesn't really make it right to be total bastards now, does it? After all, you are talking about a guy whose was raping and impregnating slaves. Not really the one I would look to for advice on how to treat non whites. Unless you are one of those true believers I would like to hear your explanation of why we are pumping up Israel to the tune of 84 billion, which I noticed you completely ignored. Explain to me why, when Americans are losing jobs left and right and are economy is a corpse, we should be packing a 747 load of cash and shipping it to Israel every single year? Hell even the Soviets during the bad old days of the cold war didn't prop up any of their puppet states anywhere that high.
You do have a serious problem with context don't you? The comment was about our entire history with the middle east being riddled with issues to some extent and here your focusing on Jefferson fucking slaves and attempting to insult the messenger rather the deal with the subject. Oh well, it's ok, I have dealt with the ignorant before, you just seem to surpass all those who have came before though.
So call me names all you want. I have found that those that call names usually do so because they know their arguments don't hold water and therefor have to resort to name calling.
I called you names because you are being an ignorant ass who can't distinguish between real and make believe. As far as arguments holding water, you seemed to miss all the arguments I made and posted links blogs that completely disregard context in the same way you do.
But the simple fact is there is NO reasonable explanation as to why we would spend 84 billion a year to prop up Israel if it wasn't for conservative Christians screaming from the pulpit "But Jesus won't come back! No matter what Israel does we must support them to save Jesus a place to land! All praise Jesus!"
Actually, there is and your wrong. First, Israel is a democracy and an internationally recognized country in
DO you actually think the N. Korean citizens have computers sitting around waiting to get the internet?
The entire NK economy is socialized which means that almost everything is rationed from the government. Hell, NK just started allowing cell phone in the country and is now contemplating internet access for those cell phones on a limited bases.
NK wouldn't be telling their people anything because the vast majority of them wouldn't have a computer or any internet capable device.
Lol.. Try closed casinos and whorehouses, confiscated American owned enterprises without compensation, and invited Russia into the country during the cold war to base nuclear missiles operations so that Russia could actually strike American targets within the continental US.
The last part alone seems to be enough. But I understand why you left is out, it weakens you view of America.
The information gathered in this way wouldn't be very useful for long. First, there are encryption techniques that would take longer then any war would to break making the information only beneficial to the intended recipients. Think about that, the message is about troop movements and a sneak attack next week and it takes 6 months to 10 years to crack it.
Second, if I know you have privilege to my communications, then I can stretch your forces and cost severe economic penalties by providing misinformation. Support I know you have access to my communications, I can stuff false information into it to see how you would respond the the threat of an attack at a specific location much like sacrificing pawns in chess in order to manipulate the board. Then I could study this response for weaknesses and develop maximum effectiveness on my part. Then after I leaned all I think I can, I could start actually attacking these places which would catch you off guard because after a few dozen false alarms, not only are you not taking my threat seriously, but your troops think it just another drill. So now you know I'm serious after a few legitimate attacks and not feeding fake information into your inteligence system, you start responding to every threat so I make 100 of them and only execute 10 at random. Now your paying to support 100 different scenarios, stretching your forces thin and increasing your costs, meanwhile, I'm sitting back and causing this with the help of American companies providing me with communications.
There is no finally because the last scenario contained the poisoning plots. When I say poisoning, I mean poisoned intelligence that contains enough accurate and inaccurate information to cause a vast amount of intelligence resources to be devoted which takes away from other intelligence aspects. I have poisoned your control over your gathering of intelligence of my operations. One of those aspects may be the secrete IM and Email servers with the real and coded information within my own country.
In short, having the communications pass through the US can be just as beneficial to the enemy as you might think it could be to the US. I'm from the US and only played the devils advocate here but I believe a lot of this crap was done during the cold war with the USSR. It's nothing new.
No, the definition for exports is just fine, what is needed is a case by case review and exemption implementation system so services that pose no real threat and possibly benefit the US can be excluded.
Methods of communicating are a key part to embargoes and export restrictions. It goes into the entire not benefiting from a free (er) system to not enabling the foreign governments easier access to control and efficiency in that control. Missile guidence systems are little more then ways to communicate. They allow a computer to relay targeting information to projectiles. But more to the point, if Iran had to spend their own money to maintain their own email and messaging services, then they are out something or burdened in order to benefit from it compared to enjoying liberties from American companies.
There is a reason for the restrictions and in some cases it can be translated to the raw essence of proving payment to foreign governments verses those governments having to pay for themselves. It's really no different then creating a charity to give funding to foreign countries that are suffering economic restrictions for their actions.
Well, lets look at it then seeing how you are refusing to do so yourself.
Political corruption, which is what we are talking about, has certain elements. From the Wikipedia article which does get it right, explains as follows:
The use of governmental powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. Corruption contains but isn't limited to bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement.
In short, political corruption falls under a concept called rent seeking. All valid forms of corruption in politics in America is illegal in one way shape or form. What isn't illegal is where confused and well meaning but unintelligent people attempt to claim what they don't like is corruption. You can't apply the liberal meaning of the word corrupt as in someone made something different because the political system is designed to allow that. That would be like accusing the doctor of corruption because the medicine he gives you regulates your insulin production and saves your life.
Do you consider the doctor to be corrupt because he gives you medicine that treats your illnesses? Then changing the government in legal ways and operating in legal cannot be considered corruption either because it was the intent of how the government is set up. When actual corruption does occur in American politics, it is illegal. So either show your proof of corruption and we will rid them from the system or realize that your tilting at windmills without any proper understanding of the claim.
Well, you just pointed out one of the shortcomings and gaps in the system. However, if the lids are on tightly and people are somewhat making sure of it, the risks go down a little with the exception of delayed reactions where the bottles explode from pressure build up. But even then, there might be some sign that something isn't quite right.
On the ground would be a better place to have one if it was going to happen. The ceilings are higher giving the gasses more places to go as well as escape paths and possible equipment to control the outcome.
However, there is another aspect to doing it that way which might make things a little different. People don't usually get mugged in front of the police. They don't look to break in at the only door with an alarm on it or a camera watching. In other words, criminals tend to minimize their chances of getting caught and it's possible that seeing how the stuff wouldn't make it onto the plane, they would just bypass that approach.
It tought to cover every threat. Some things seem overboard and some things seem insufficient. However, when I fly, I would prefer knowing that they are at least attempting to address the issue rather then ignore it. I just wish they could get the bugs worked out a little better.
Resistant to change? How about lack of opportunity and justification?
I know people who were never rich enough to buy a computer and grew up in a time when then didn't need one. I also know these same people who don't have a justification for spending $5-600 or even thousands of dollars for a computer that they obviously don't need. Would you call these people resistant to change or just practical and prudent with their finances?
Just because you have a use for one doesn't mean everyone does or will.
That's sort of the problem. There is a gap in technology that requires half backed shortcuts to be implemented which are over bearing and intrusive.
It's really a balancing act of finding the amount of procedures that work but don't leave gaping holes. And usually, a low paid drone who got the job because he was picked on in high school and this gives him power now, that has to fill the gaps which make otherwise reasonable policies seem outrageous. I mean we actually did catch a guy sneaking explosives on a plane in his shoes, which would be more acceptable to you, a chemical detection unit passing within inches of your body giving false positives or taking your shoes off at the airport for a better detection method can be employed? Restrictions of liquids on a plane seem arcane too, but not only is there an explosive threat which chemicals that wouldn't likely be detected by the chemical sniffers, but there is a poisoning threat there two. It isn't hard to wire some 9 volt batteries together in a series, attach some graphite rods and drop it in a saltwater solution in the presence of Co2. Remember, a plane is a confined space that you can't really open windows up on at 35000 feet so the resulting chlorine gas would/could cause some serious issues.
A lot of the times, we don't really understand the why as much as the inconvenience. It would be nice is we didn't have to worry about anything like this but that reality left a while ago.
You missing the point of terrorism verses what you have control over.
You see, you have made choices concerning your driving habbits and health risks. This is fine because you found what you thought was reasonable and acceptable. Others, they buy bigger cars and drive slower or they don't eat meat or whatever because they have control over that. Now, what you don't have control over is me walking down the street shooting my gun in random directions, reloading and doing it again.
Would you stand up and proclaim support for my rights to do that or would you find cover and call the police? What if you knew I was going to do it 5 hours before it happened and I have done it in the past so you know I'm not joking? Would support having me harassed and possible have my guns taken away from me? Why, you have balls and think no one should be afraid of terrorism. Would you stand in the same room with me as I did that? Why, because you have balls?
If you answered that you wouldn't be nervous if not afraid nor act in a way to preserver your own life, perhaps the life of someone else too, then you a fucking idiot. But if you answered like a normal person and don't think I should be able to just randomly start shooting in crowded places that you are at. The problem with the airport and borders are that you have no control, your on a plane in a confined space with a great chance of dieing if you leave the confined space mid flight. It's not like you heat gun shots and an explosion and decide to take an alternative way to work, your stuck there and defenseless. This is why people demand certain measures of security to be in place when they have no control of their own safety.
If you don't want to take your shoes off at the airport, then either don't fly or get a private flight. It's really no different then going to McDonald's and not being ble to order a Whopper. If you don't like the situation, find one you do. That is your choice and part of the control of your own safety. but don't sit there and think because you are stupid or brave that everyone else has to give up their expectations of safety and security when entering situations outside their control.
I know this will get me marked as flamebait or troll or whatever, but frankly I don't care. You want to know why we have trouble with terrorism and have all this crap going on in the Middle East? Because pretty much our ENTIRE Middle East Policy of the last 50+ years can be summed up in this sentence- "Jesus won't come back! Praise Jesus!"
I wish there were mod levels for "just fucking stupid". You would surpass +5 in no time. The Middle east policy has been broken since the beginning of the country you idiot. Ever hear about a guy named Thomas Jefferson who's first acts as president was to raise a navy, create the marines and invade the middle east? I'm sure you have heard their song "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli".
I really wish I was joking, but sadly I am not. You have one of the most powerful nations on earth basing an entire region's policies on whether or not a 2000+ year old dead guy will be able to walk down out of a cloud. That is pretty fucking scary. Hell look at this where they were putting top sheets on the war plans for Iraq with scripture!
This makes you look so damn stupid it isn't funny. First, you don't even know what the second comming of Christ is prophesied as. When he comes back, it's the ends of the world completely. It's not some dude walking down from a cloud.
I have to ask though, what policies in specific are based on your incorrect assumption? I'm assuming it has something to do with the support of Israel in which you would be completely incorrect. but go ahead and tell me what policies you think are based around the belief in Christ. the only thing scary here is how ill informed you are and the tripe you make up as if it is real. It a little less scary that others probably believe you but that's another story.
The rest of your post is complete rubbish based on your misgivings already mentioned. There is no real point in addressing that in particular because it's all fallacious until you can support the claim of foreign policy being set because of religion. You seem to have a serious problem with the history of the middle east, the US involvements there and the history of the US in general. Perhaps if you would invest a little time on learning history instead of fearing someone's religion that you fail to understand, you wouldn't appear so damn stupid right now. For instance, your depiction of the 6 day war, the US stayed neutral in that because of a conflict with Russia over it. Eisenhower even warned Israel that they wouldn't get support from the US because of it (Russia) if Israel started the war and expressed fears that American involvement would start another world war with Russia.
It seems that your lack of knowledge allows you to piece bits and pieces of information together and come up with completely fictional events. The world is now dumber because of your post. You should be the poster child for why we need abortion to remain legal.
Jews don't just convert people to their religion like other faiths attempt to. There is also a long standing tradition of marrying within the religion. A practicing jew from europe would most likely be a descendant from the original jews of the holy land more often then not. They might have other mixes in them but they do have connections to the original inhabitants of the "Holy Land".
Unfuckable, that's all we did in our spare time at our coed young republicans camp. I think there was even some log cabin republicans there too.
I'm not sure where you got that idea from, but some of the hottest women in America are republicans and they get more action then you probably dream about.
You mean at this day and age you are not aware of the oil for food scams? Wow, I didn't think anyone lacked knowledge of that but I will attempt to paraphrase it a little for you.
When Iraq kicked the inspectors out the first time, the response was sanctions baring Iraq from exporting anything and importing anything except medical supplies and food. The arguemnt was put forth that if Iraq couldn't export oil, it couldn't afford the needed humanitarian supplies so the oil for food program was created. The program originally allowed a small amount of oil to be sold at market value in order to purchase humanitarian aid and was designed to keep the sanction effectivly in place.
At first, corrupt UN officials started smuggling banned items and duel use items in place of the food. Then it got so bold that companies were getting cut rate contracts for oil in excess of the allowed amounts. Frances objection to war in Iraq had a lot to do with their illegal oil contracts that were discovered after the 2003 invasion.
Anyways, if the sanctions had worked, and Saddam had gone into verifiable compliance to the armistice agreements, none of the conditions present in 2001-2003 would have been present and none of the arguments made for the war could have been made outside maybe the connections to Al Qaeda. But Collen Powell didn't go to the UN with evidence of links to Al Qaeda, he went with evidence of non-compliance and almost 1100 resolutions attempting to create compliance.
Can anyone with a straight face sit here and claim that we would have been able to justify a war in Iraq if Saddam had been in compliance with his obligations? Even though links to Al Qaeda was mentioned, the entire legal justification for war revolved around non-compliance with the 1990 armistice agreement and subsequent UN resolutions attempting to put Iraq into compliance including UN resolution 1441.
The US has been stopping and inspecting identities at the borders for the better part of a century now. It has done so in some form or another since the beginning of the country in which the first congress passed a law creating the customs inspections and allowed the inspection of crew and passenger lists.
This was not anything that hasn't happened before 9/11. The connection you want to put there just doesn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying it is a good thing, I'm saying it is not a bad thing (noting wrong). The problem that makes your sentiment moot is that even without the lobbyist, it still exists.
You see, if all lobbyist fell into the ocean today, you still need to do something to get the politicians attention. Chances are, most people wanting to do so won't understand without a lot of additional education how to do this buy in any means. It will still cost crap loads of money to get their attention to make yourself heard above all the others clambering for something.
Think about this, you have a group of concerned citizens over the poverty in the US. Lets call them the GCCPU group. Now, lobbyist are gone so you need to send everyone to Washington to talk to their representatives about welfare entitlements. That costs money and the richest group can send the most people. Well lets supposed they decided to run commercials on TV instead, an opposition group runs counter commercials describing how they changed the GCCPU is asking for will place more people into poverty plus damage the working people of America. We'll call this second group the Evil Rich White Guy Association or ERWGA. Now who makes the biggest impact? The richest group who can spend the most money effectivly. The problem you mentioned is still there.
Now suppose an industry trade group representing hundreds of corporations which in turn represent every shareholder that owns part of the corporation, decides that not only is the GCCPU changes bad, but this would be a good opportunity to change a few other things they see wrong with the situation. Let's call these people BigOil (not to be confused with the oil companies). Now, the CEO of each of these corporations and the share holders, some of which may belong to any of the other groups would have to go to Washington to talk to their representatives. And with the corporate structure, you would pretty much be bound to support the move or you would be acting against the interest of the corporation and facing some other possible issues (forced stock sales, legal and civil damages and so on).
Or they take the route of commercials on TV too and build off of the other group's concerns (ERWGA). So we got three groups of people with three different views and what had changed without lobbyist? Only the mechanism in which it gets done. The money is still there and the richer party still has more persuasion. In the end, the rich still win.
Now there is a loophole to this but it's also true with lobbyist present too. Lets assume that the issue is one that is so heinous that the majority of Americans automagically appose it anyways (a modern holocaust, molestation of 5 year old kids, dumping toxic wastes and raw sewage in the drinking water supply). Well, the less rich (which is actually more rich if combined but there is no common connection) people of America will have little problem getting their point across and getting the government to do something. But lobbyist wouldn't be needed in this situation either so it sort of steps outside the mold that lobbyist create.
In the end, without lobbyists, all that happens is that things get more expensive and complicated. The person with the most money tends to be the person who will prevail in much the same sense as it happened with lobbyists.
People can make their own chances and create their own opportunities. They don't need to sit around waiting for others to hand them out. Of course this gets more difficult in anally retarded and overly regulated states like California where you need a license to do just about anything other then be employed by someone (self employment and contract work). But there is no reason why anyone shouldn't be able to do something on their own to gain employment even if it's just odd jobs.
I got an account with a law firm once just for testifying about some technical aspects for the apposing council. I created that chance by doing something, the other law firm probably would have never bothered with me without that.
But you don't need some crafty situation like that to happen. If your field is in tech, then put a simple add in the paper for computer repair then show up and actually do it. If you have a truck, do garbage removal and haul junk away for people, if your capable of physical labor without a truck, price a rental into the mix. There are all sorts of things that someone can do to create opportunities and chances on their own. If newspaper adds are too expensive, flyers at laundromats, church bulletin boards, community centers and so on work too.
As for managing the availible talents in the US, that is an individual choice not a government or anyone else'. You don't want a third party managing your talents at all. I have worked at many different jobs over my lifetime which range from restaurant drone to roofer to general construction and rough framing to truck driver to heavy equipment operator to hazardous material cleanup to tech consultant plus I have owned several businesses all started from scratch and are either thriving to this day or sold out to partners or other companies thriving to this day. If someone was managing our talents, then I would have had to ask permission to change talents and most likely would be stuck doing something I decided I didn't want to do anymore. I doubt I would have been able to open my own businesses either.
You have the potential to lose a lot of freedom and happiness with others managing your talents. In a few years (5-10), I think I'm going to take a stab at becoming a lawyer concentrating in tech related law. That's one of those talents I don't have and would have to ask someone for permission to enter into if we had someone managing talents in the US. Just because others don't use their freedoms doesn't mean we should have them taken away.
I was going from Ohio to New York city to pick a friend up (and to spend a week) then we were supposed to road trip to Los Angeles California to meet another friend getting out of the military. My car got stolen in NYC along with all our possessions. This was back in the early 90's and we decided to just hitchhike to CA and get a rental car there to come back home while my insurance company was sorting out the damage.
We traveled in much the same way, We had probably two changes of cloths, some rope and a couple of small tarps we used to make tents from. We probably walked a little over 100 miles or so total and found rides for the rest of the 2500+ mile trip. When we made it to New Mexico, a cousin gave us a place to stay then drove us the rest of the way in. It took a little over a week to get there.
It was quite a bit of fun actually. We even ran into other doing the same thing for different reasons. Worrying about getting there took a lot off my mind over losing my car and everything in it. We called in every day to see if they found it but it was never reported as found (*ever).
This reminds me of a neighbor who lost his job when on of the local factories moved out of state. New opportunities were all around him but he refused to work unless he was in management as he was before losing his old job.
Eventually, they lost their home and his wife's father purchased it in some foreclosure deal so they wouldn't move in with him. It took a divorce before he decided to just get work and it turned out that after about 5 years at the construction job he took, he started making more money then he thought possible in low-mid level management.
It seems that as long as there is enough of an excuse to hold out, people will. When that excuse or ability to hold out is removed, the pride goes away and things happen. He says he is happier then he ever was in management to boot so it makes you wonder what would have been if he would have went with something else earlier.
The reason for high production is so we don't experience famine because of drought or natural catastrophes.
The US used to attempt to coordinate agriculture production to coincide with use expectations but when we started doing this, we found that area droughts, river flooding, hurricanes and other natural disasters would cause food shortages. So we shifted from attempting to farm just enough to using the strengths of geographical separation of the different states in order to account for the loss of a certain percentage of food supplies. Last I heard, this was about 20 percent in grains and roughly 6-10 percent in meats.
This need to over produce was realized after the effects of the great depressions when some of the first farm subsidies were implemented and rejected by the supreme court as unconstitutional. Instead of a natural disaster making food scare, it was an economic disaster on top of a natural disaster(the dust bowl) that caused agriculture production to threaten the security of the country.
Now this overage was encouraged by the US government buying the excess to keep market prices up and then attempting to resell it when prices raised again. We found that this screwed the pooch so to say because we originally did it only with cotton and wheat and all the other farmers started switching because of a guaranteed bottom price. Eventually, we stopped that and started using it to send aid to other countries. WWII's ends worked out well because of the air lift of rations into Germany and the rebuilding of Europe gave an outlet for this. By the 1960's we started giving the food out in a government pantry program that eventually turned into the welfare system and because this was still within the US, we encouraged more growth and then gave the food to African and south American nations which were suffering from the same problems we were defending again. This is how the "we feed the world" saying came into play.
After we started seeing an over production and market prices started falling, the government started paying farmers partial market price to not raise certain crops and animals for a few years with the idea that prices would stabilize and people would keep their farms and it wouldn't be too hard to kick them back into production of shortages came about. Well, we probably all have heard the story of the farmer who wanted to make money by not raising pigs or not growing corn just like his neighbor does. This was a sentiment where people were upset because farms not producing were making more money then farms that were and the costs of this was being passed on to the consumer making the demand even less.
Now the idea is that we pay subsidies to specific farms based on their production capabilities and geographical locations. There is also a more open international market that some crops are redirected to. The US still maintains a year supply for strategic purposed of quite a few crops but recently there has been a push to eliminate these programs. If you divide the US into 5 segments with equal amounts of population, the idea is to have one segment completely fail at producing food and still have enough from the other segments so that no one starves and the costs of the food to the consumer doesn't skyrocket. I consider the a matter of national security, some see it as a waste. I know I'm not running out of food and I'm comfortable that they won't either. But as we seen with the Mississippi river flooding a year or two ago and all the crops being lost, no one starved, food didn't double or triple in price because of it, and things seemed to work out as planed.
Can you tell me which lawyers who names are on the brief actually worked for RIAA, MAPP, or have some other connection to them?
I don't think this paper says anything about the DOJ nor the RIAA lawyers because I can't find one of their names behind the brief submitted. Chances are, the EX RIAA lawyers never saw the brief, it was probably reviewed for accuracy by some other low level lawyers and approved by some mid level management.
Your more or less right here except that the vast majority of DOJ employees don't change jobs when new leaders come in. It's entirely possible that people working for President Carter are still employed at the DOJ and remained employed under different presidents and parties.
Here, you are just wrong. The DOJ is supposed to enfore the law period. They don't represent anything but the law as it is written and how courts reconcile that to the constitution. The DOJ can push for an interpretation the administration has laid out if there is shacky grounds but they in no way "reflect the will of the people".
In fact, the federal government was never indented to address the will of the people directly. The federal government in the US is only supposed to represent the states in matters of state (foreign relations) and matters between the states with a limited few other things specifically written into the constitution. You can see how obvious this is by simply reading the constitution. The senate was originally appointed by the state, the president was/still is appointed by the state, and the house of representative which all tax raises are supposed to originate in was the representation of the people. The idea was so that the people had a say in government not so that government served the people. The federal government serves nothing but the offices they hold. Now don't get me wrong, the office covers the people but they also cover so many other things like corporations which provide jobs, trade between the states and with foreign countries and so on.
You also need to understand that a: corporations are nothing more then collections of people who invested in a concept but are shielded from it's performance to some extent by their lack of participation in the company. b: Lobbyist are nothing more then people who have familiarity with the congress critters and take points directly to them instead of leaving it to them to figure out on their own. There is nothing wrong with lobbyist because they allow single representation of groups of people with no political clout. Without them, no one's voice will be heard more, nothing will be different, except those groups will have to spend the money directly on getting the congress critters attention some other way instead of giving it to someone who already has their attention.
Wow, you sure are a history revisionist. Here is a hint, when the US threw the spanish out, we have been friendly with CUBA ever since until Castro came along. There was no bribery needed dumbass.
And you point is what? I said that was cause to be pissed at Cuba and Castro, not that it didn't happen. Or are you one of those fuck tards who think we shouldn't take any actions against those who threaten us? And yes, installing nuclear missiles in a specific location just to be able to strike the land of your country is a threat.
So you identify you statesmanship and nationality with an entire fucking continent. Good job there buddy.
There are at least eight independent nations in north America (more if you count Indian reservations and Iceland and Greenland and other islands as part of the continent) and around 13 or so south America countries. So when talking about relations between two specific countries, you seem to think it is somehow pertinent to claim that you are from one of 20 some different countries except the only one with America in it's name. Could you please tell me why it was important for you to shift from the topic of two countries interacting the the entire hemispherical continental shelf? Do you envy America that much and hate your own nationality so much that you need to pull confusing stunts like that in order to feel better about yourself? As if finding some way to claim you are an American, Not North or Central American, not South American but good ol American somehow elevates your status or something. Well, it doesn't, it only makes you look foolish. Please tell me which country it is your living in that your so ashamed of.
Wow, you are more stupid then I originally thought. You link to _blogs_ which take things out of context and present it in a biased and skewed way. First of all, the bible quote put in the daily briefings were after the war started and was intended to support Bush "spiritually" at a time when casualties were high in Iraq. That does not imply policy was made from them or that they had any bearing on policy other then to aid Bush in reading about the losses our soldiers were suffering. Second, the Jesus quote by Clinton was nothing more then a political tactic intended sway public opinion. It had nothing to do with policy being set, it had to do with gaining support for or against policy already in place. To take it any other way is nothing more then your imagination getting the best of you which is obvious from your postings. I asked for the policies and you give me links to blog posts taking how politicians deal with their decisions and manipulate the public completely out of context.
While I'm at it, why don't you show where this expansion has been? You mentioned expansionist policies yet both Iraq and Afghanistan has been turned over to the people of those countries and only point to blogs expressing opinions that take things out of context. Is there anything in your worldview that is based in reality?
You do have a serious problem with context don't you? The comment was about our entire history with the middle east being riddled with issues to some extent and here your focusing on Jefferson fucking slaves and attempting to insult the messenger rather the deal with the subject. Oh well, it's ok, I have dealt with the ignorant before, you just seem to surpass all those who have came before though.
I called you names because you are being an ignorant ass who can't distinguish between real and make believe. As far as arguments holding water, you seemed to miss all the arguments I made and posted links blogs that completely disregard context in the same way you do.
Actually, there is and your wrong. First, Israel is a democracy and an internationally recognized country in
DO you actually think the N. Korean citizens have computers sitting around waiting to get the internet?
The entire NK economy is socialized which means that almost everything is rationed from the government. Hell, NK just started allowing cell phone in the country and is now contemplating internet access for those cell phones on a limited bases.
NK wouldn't be telling their people anything because the vast majority of them wouldn't have a computer or any internet capable device.
Lol.. Try closed casinos and whorehouses, confiscated American owned enterprises without compensation, and invited Russia into the country during the cold war to base nuclear missiles operations so that Russia could actually strike American targets within the continental US.
The last part alone seems to be enough. But I understand why you left is out, it weakens you view of America.
Encryption, misdirection, and poisoning plots.
The information gathered in this way wouldn't be very useful for long. First, there are encryption techniques that would take longer then any war would to break making the information only beneficial to the intended recipients. Think about that, the message is about troop movements and a sneak attack next week and it takes 6 months to 10 years to crack it.
Second, if I know you have privilege to my communications, then I can stretch your forces and cost severe economic penalties by providing misinformation. Support I know you have access to my communications, I can stuff false information into it to see how you would respond the the threat of an attack at a specific location much like sacrificing pawns in chess in order to manipulate the board. Then I could study this response for weaknesses and develop maximum effectiveness on my part. Then after I leaned all I think I can, I could start actually attacking these places which would catch you off guard because after a few dozen false alarms, not only are you not taking my threat seriously, but your troops think it just another drill. So now you know I'm serious after a few legitimate attacks and not feeding fake information into your inteligence system, you start responding to every threat so I make 100 of them and only execute 10 at random. Now your paying to support 100 different scenarios, stretching your forces thin and increasing your costs, meanwhile, I'm sitting back and causing this with the help of American companies providing me with communications.
There is no finally because the last scenario contained the poisoning plots. When I say poisoning, I mean poisoned intelligence that contains enough accurate and inaccurate information to cause a vast amount of intelligence resources to be devoted which takes away from other intelligence aspects. I have poisoned your control over your gathering of intelligence of my operations. One of those aspects may be the secrete IM and Email servers with the real and coded information within my own country.
In short, having the communications pass through the US can be just as beneficial to the enemy as you might think it could be to the US. I'm from the US and only played the devils advocate here but I believe a lot of this crap was done during the cold war with the USSR. It's nothing new.
No, the definition for exports is just fine, what is needed is a case by case review and exemption implementation system so services that pose no real threat and possibly benefit the US can be excluded.
Methods of communicating are a key part to embargoes and export restrictions. It goes into the entire not benefiting from a free (er) system to not enabling the foreign governments easier access to control and efficiency in that control. Missile guidence systems are little more then ways to communicate. They allow a computer to relay targeting information to projectiles. But more to the point, if Iran had to spend their own money to maintain their own email and messaging services, then they are out something or burdened in order to benefit from it compared to enjoying liberties from American companies.
There is a reason for the restrictions and in some cases it can be translated to the raw essence of proving payment to foreign governments verses those governments having to pay for themselves. It's really no different then creating a charity to give funding to foreign countries that are suffering economic restrictions for their actions.
Well, lets look at it then seeing how you are refusing to do so yourself.
Political corruption, which is what we are talking about, has certain elements. From the Wikipedia article which does get it right, explains as follows:
The use of governmental powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain.
Corruption contains but isn't limited to bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement.
In short, political corruption falls under a concept called rent seeking. All valid forms of corruption in politics in America is illegal in one way shape or form. What isn't illegal is where confused and well meaning but unintelligent people attempt to claim what they don't like is corruption. You can't apply the liberal meaning of the word corrupt as in someone made something different because the political system is designed to allow that. That would be like accusing the doctor of corruption because the medicine he gives you regulates your insulin production and saves your life.
Do you consider the doctor to be corrupt because he gives you medicine that treats your illnesses? Then changing the government in legal ways and operating in legal cannot be considered corruption either because it was the intent of how the government is set up. When actual corruption does occur in American politics, it is illegal. So either show your proof of corruption and we will rid them from the system or realize that your tilting at windmills without any proper understanding of the claim.
What's that old saying? Stalin made the trains run on time, the only problem is that no one wanted to take the trains after that.
Well, you just pointed out one of the shortcomings and gaps in the system. However, if the lids are on tightly and people are somewhat making sure of it, the risks go down a little with the exception of delayed reactions where the bottles explode from pressure build up. But even then, there might be some sign that something isn't quite right.
On the ground would be a better place to have one if it was going to happen. The ceilings are higher giving the gasses more places to go as well as escape paths and possible equipment to control the outcome.
However, there is another aspect to doing it that way which might make things a little different. People don't usually get mugged in front of the police. They don't look to break in at the only door with an alarm on it or a camera watching. In other words, criminals tend to minimize their chances of getting caught and it's possible that seeing how the stuff wouldn't make it onto the plane, they would just bypass that approach.
It tought to cover every threat. Some things seem overboard and some things seem insufficient. However, when I fly, I would prefer knowing that they are at least attempting to address the issue rather then ignore it. I just wish they could get the bugs worked out a little better.
Resistant to change? How about lack of opportunity and justification?
I know people who were never rich enough to buy a computer and grew up in a time when then didn't need one. I also know these same people who don't have a justification for spending $5-600 or even thousands of dollars for a computer that they obviously don't need. Would you call these people resistant to change or just practical and prudent with their finances?
Just because you have a use for one doesn't mean everyone does or will.
That's sort of the problem. There is a gap in technology that requires half backed shortcuts to be implemented which are over bearing and intrusive.
It's really a balancing act of finding the amount of procedures that work but don't leave gaping holes. And usually, a low paid drone who got the job because he was picked on in high school and this gives him power now, that has to fill the gaps which make otherwise reasonable policies seem outrageous. I mean we actually did catch a guy sneaking explosives on a plane in his shoes, which would be more acceptable to you, a chemical detection unit passing within inches of your body giving false positives or taking your shoes off at the airport for a better detection method can be employed? Restrictions of liquids on a plane seem arcane too, but not only is there an explosive threat which chemicals that wouldn't likely be detected by the chemical sniffers, but there is a poisoning threat there two. It isn't hard to wire some 9 volt batteries together in a series, attach some graphite rods and drop it in a saltwater solution in the presence of Co2. Remember, a plane is a confined space that you can't really open windows up on at 35000 feet so the resulting chlorine gas would/could cause some serious issues.
A lot of the times, we don't really understand the why as much as the inconvenience. It would be nice is we didn't have to worry about anything like this but that reality left a while ago.
You missing the point of terrorism verses what you have control over.
You see, you have made choices concerning your driving habbits and health risks. This is fine because you found what you thought was reasonable and acceptable. Others, they buy bigger cars and drive slower or they don't eat meat or whatever because they have control over that. Now, what you don't have control over is me walking down the street shooting my gun in random directions, reloading and doing it again.
Would you stand up and proclaim support for my rights to do that or would you find cover and call the police? What if you knew I was going to do it 5 hours before it happened and I have done it in the past so you know I'm not joking? Would support having me harassed and possible have my guns taken away from me? Why, you have balls and think no one should be afraid of terrorism. Would you stand in the same room with me as I did that? Why, because you have balls?
If you answered that you wouldn't be nervous if not afraid nor act in a way to preserver your own life, perhaps the life of someone else too, then you a fucking idiot. But if you answered like a normal person and don't think I should be able to just randomly start shooting in crowded places that you are at. The problem with the airport and borders are that you have no control, your on a plane in a confined space with a great chance of dieing if you leave the confined space mid flight. It's not like you heat gun shots and an explosion and decide to take an alternative way to work, your stuck there and defenseless. This is why people demand certain measures of security to be in place when they have no control of their own safety.
If you don't want to take your shoes off at the airport, then either don't fly or get a private flight. It's really no different then going to McDonald's and not being ble to order a Whopper. If you don't like the situation, find one you do. That is your choice and part of the control of your own safety. but don't sit there and think because you are stupid or brave that everyone else has to give up their expectations of safety and security when entering situations outside their control.
I wish there were mod levels for "just fucking stupid". You would surpass +5 in no time. The Middle east policy has been broken since the beginning of the country you idiot. Ever hear about a guy named Thomas Jefferson who's first acts as president was to raise a navy, create the marines and invade the middle east? I'm sure you have heard their song "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli".
This makes you look so damn stupid it isn't funny. First, you don't even know what the second comming of Christ is prophesied as. When he comes back, it's the ends of the world completely. It's not some dude walking down from a cloud.
I have to ask though, what policies in specific are based on your incorrect assumption? I'm assuming it has something to do with the support of Israel in which you would be completely incorrect. but go ahead and tell me what policies you think are based around the belief in Christ. the only thing scary here is how ill informed you are and the tripe you make up as if it is real. It a little less scary that others probably believe you but that's another story.
The rest of your post is complete rubbish based on your misgivings already mentioned. There is no real point in addressing that in particular because it's all fallacious until you can support the claim of foreign policy being set because of religion. You seem to have a serious problem with the history of the middle east, the US involvements there and the history of the US in general. Perhaps if you would invest a little time on learning history instead of fearing someone's religion that you fail to understand, you wouldn't appear so damn stupid right now. For instance, your depiction of the 6 day war, the US stayed neutral in that because of a conflict with Russia over it. Eisenhower even warned Israel that they wouldn't get support from the US because of it (Russia) if Israel started the war and expressed fears that American involvement would start another world war with Russia.
It seems that your lack of knowledge allows you to piece bits and pieces of information together and come up with completely fictional events. The world is now dumber because of your post. You should be the poster child for why we need abortion to remain legal.
What are you smoking?
Jews don't just convert people to their religion like other faiths attempt to. There is also a long standing tradition of marrying within the religion. A practicing jew from europe would most likely be a descendant from the original jews of the holy land more often then not. They might have other mixes in them but they do have connections to the original inhabitants of the "Holy Land".
You might as well add french in there too. France control Mexico for some time before their revolution. In fact, I think they took mexico from spain.
Unfuckable, that's all we did in our spare time at our coed young republicans camp. I think there was even some log cabin republicans there too.
I'm not sure where you got that idea from, but some of the hottest women in America are republicans and they get more action then you probably dream about.
Smoking?
You mean at this day and age you are not aware of the oil for food scams? Wow, I didn't think anyone lacked knowledge of that but I will attempt to paraphrase it a little for you.
When Iraq kicked the inspectors out the first time, the response was sanctions baring Iraq from exporting anything and importing anything except medical supplies and food. The arguemnt was put forth that if Iraq couldn't export oil, it couldn't afford the needed humanitarian supplies so the oil for food program was created. The program originally allowed a small amount of oil to be sold at market value in order to purchase humanitarian aid and was designed to keep the sanction effectivly in place.
At first, corrupt UN officials started smuggling banned items and duel use items in place of the food. Then it got so bold that companies were getting cut rate contracts for oil in excess of the allowed amounts. Frances objection to war in Iraq had a lot to do with their illegal oil contracts that were discovered after the 2003 invasion.
Anyways, if the sanctions had worked, and Saddam had gone into verifiable compliance to the armistice agreements, none of the conditions present in 2001-2003 would have been present and none of the arguments made for the war could have been made outside maybe the connections to Al Qaeda. But Collen Powell didn't go to the UN with evidence of links to Al Qaeda, he went with evidence of non-compliance and almost 1100 resolutions attempting to create compliance.
Can anyone with a straight face sit here and claim that we would have been able to justify a war in Iraq if Saddam had been in compliance with his obligations? Even though links to Al Qaeda was mentioned, the entire legal justification for war revolved around non-compliance with the 1990 armistice agreement and subsequent UN resolutions attempting to put Iraq into compliance including UN resolution 1441.
The US has been stopping and inspecting identities at the borders for the better part of a century now. It has done so in some form or another since the beginning of the country in which the first congress passed a law creating the customs inspections and allowed the inspection of crew and passenger lists.
This was not anything that hasn't happened before 9/11. The connection you want to put there just doesn't exist.