So. Since when has the United States ever adhered to an international treaty that it signed when it was seen to be getting in the way of what the US wanted to do.
The fact of the matter is that preventing climate change does not create wealth, raise ones (monitary)standard of living or create and maintain jobs on a large scale. However, attempting to repairing the aftermath does.
It all comes down to 'votes and dollars' and it has been that way since the beginning of time. For proof just try to find 'The Ceders of Lebenon' or the forests on Easter Island not to mention the Dodo.
Want to start saving the envorinment, buy a bike and use it for any trip under 5KM.
That is not the same. The doctor is not acting on his own initutive to remove the tumor in the early stages. I will be paying him to do so.
So what if the West American Blue Tit goes extinct. It is not as if it is really doing anything other than looking pretty and all saving it will do is cost people jobs and thus the party in power votes.
In that case they could read and write.
In Biblical times in the Holy Land there were wolves and lions. These were the top carnivores and they are mentioned frequently in the Bible. In addition large herbivores such as elephants and buffalo are also mentioned. Now these are very impressive animals so one can see that they would be mentioned in and take center stage in several of the Biblical stories and in the civil records of the ancient societies of the area.
Now in the Holy Land there also lived an even more impressive animal who's fossilized bones have been found in Jordan, http://www.pellamuseum.org/Pella_Museum/Vertebrate /jibal_ghuzayma.htm. This animal was several times larger than and elephant. It was in fact a dinosaur and it is never motioned in the Bible. It is never mentioned in any clay tablet from any of the Biblical civilizations, it is never mentioned in the writings of the Egyptian empire. Imagine an animal that is 12 to 14 meters long and lived at the same time as people in the area and this animal is never once mentioned in either the Biblical or historical record. It was 3 to 4 times the size of an African elephant. It was never reported to have eaten up a villages crops, it was never reported to have accidentally stepped on any one and it was never used as a sacrifice.
Ok, so now lets move on to to Syria where bones belonging to a species of 13 foot high camels have been found, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219310,00.html. These animals are twice the size of any description of any camel that was found in any of the Biblical or historical record of the time. Why were the never used like other camels. Why are there no stories about some chap going against the popular wisdom of the day an instead of using the small camels trapped and used the wild giant camels.
Did people just over look these large and majestic beasts or or were these beasts just very good a hiding or maybe were they long gone before people ever arrived. After all they were supposedly taken aboard the Ark so they should be mentioned but they are not. No, not even one convincing description.
OK, so man and dinosaurs lived together. That must mean then, that all the Biblical hero's were pansies. I mean all they did was kill few wolves (David) and enter a Lions den (Daniel) . If they were real hero's why did they not slay one of the T-Rexes that were wondering around eating everything in sight or enter a den of hungry Velosoraptors. Then they would have been real hero's.
In there examples the closest thing to a cave drawing was only mineral stains on rock. The rest were 'modern' illistrations of accepted legends of the time. And as to the foot prints, a walking foot print does not look like any of those depicted.
We have lots of cave drawings of man with impressive animals like wooly mamoths and the like. So why are there not cave drawings of man with really impressive animals like the dinasaurs. I mean I I was impressed enought to paint the large elephant like creature you would think that a 20' high meat eating moster would at least reate a few pictures.
A 2004 study by a Open Source Risk Management, a company selling insurance against risks of using open-source software, concluded that Linux could violate at least 283 patents, 27 of them Microsoft patents.
If you read the actual report that the magic number came from you will see that Microsoft only holds about 11% of the 235 'unchalenged' patents that linux 'possibly' infringes on.
Read what I posted I never said that the Coalition Forces ( 66% were U.S. 34% other countries) in the Liberation of Kuwait were Uniter Nations mercenaries. Although the United States and their coalition partners did make sure that they were operating under United Nations Resolution 660," a diplomatic formulation authorizing the use of force". What I said was that the cease fire was orchestrated by the members of United Nations Security Council and that there was not a separate cease fire between the United States and Iraq. Therefore any violation of the cease fire would be against the United Nations and not the United States. It would therefore be up to the United Nations to act if putative actions were called for and and not the United States. By acting outside the purview of the United Nations in this matter, by invading Irag in 2003 and not doing so in self defence, the United States acted contrary to their treaty obligations and thus 'illegally'.
The United Nations was not the law firm that wrote the resolution, that is not how the United Nations Security Council works, it was the one of the two parties to the agreement the other being Iraq. If any one could be considered the drafting law firm that would have to be the Russians since they created the initial draft of the ceasefire resolution which was later sponsored for ratification by the UN Security Council by Belgium, France, Romania, the United Kingdom, the United States and Zaire.
This ceasefire which you keep parading out was not negotiated with the United States but under the auspices of the United Nations as resolution 687 (http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/resolut ion_687.html). Therefore, it was up to the United Nations being the aggrieved party to initiate any putative actions against Iraq for any violations. The United Nations chose not to, the United States acted unilaterally against the will of the United Nations. Therefore, in the view of the United Nations the United States and their allies, as signatories to the United Nations charter, acted 'illegally'.
Yes when discussing Iraq, North Korea et la are all irrelevant. Except that, for the cascading and ever changing reasons given by the United States administration for the invasion of Iraq, could be and have been applied to any number of other regions in the world. Some of which are even worse than Iraq ever was. And the United States administration always either differed to the United Nations or said that they were internal matters and without United Nations sanctioning it intervening would be a breach of International Law. So if this was the case for not intervening in say Rwanda, Cypress or North Korea, then to invade Iraq as it did with out express sanction from the United Nations Security Council, remember Iraq had not attacked the United States so there was no self defense clause to invoke, must also be a breach of International Law and thus by the United States administration's own admission, illegal.
Instead using half truths, the US Administration manufactured a big lie to initiate a self defense clause, which have been documented by both US and international sources and used it to try to implement the "Project for New American Century" (http://zfacts.com/p/775.html) using Iraq as the initial building block (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulszmnTbwjM)
References are slightly populist but core data is correct.
Again with the juvenile personal attacks. Do you really feel they enhance your position?
If violation of a United Nations brokered ceasefire was justification then why has North Korea not been invaded They after all are the larger threat. Not to mention Syria, Israel, India and Pakistan. After the first Gulf War Iraq was no threat to anyone but their own people and based on the United States published positions to the genocide in Rwanda, Darfour and many other places in the world that is not reason enough to invade a sovereign country even after repeated resolutions in the Security Counsel for the parties to stop.
Oh and if you replay again, please try to be adult about it.
And personal attacks on a poster stands your opinion in even higher state?
The United States attacked Iraq with out provocation. Iraq did not attack the United States. Instead they defied and made a nuisance of themselves to the United Nations. The United Nations did not sanction the attack because it and the rest of the international community saw no immediate or perceived threat. Hence the attack was 'morally', if not legally via international standards and conventions, illegal. It, the United States, was acting for purely political gain in the same manner as the Argentinian government did when they attacked the Falkland Islands. With essentially the same results both at home and abroad.
I said nothing about their military prowess. They were just right about being against the illegal invasion of Iraq. After all Iraq had no WMDs, they had nothing to do with 9/11 and, being a secular state, had nothing to do with any type of religious extremists and the leaders of the US knew this as has been proven by several Congressional and Senate hearings.
You probably still believe that all the 9/11 terrorists entered the US illegally via the 'open' Canadian border. When in actual fact the all entered the US legally from Europe and the Middle East using legal obtained documents.
TV signals can be analog or digital. These signals can be then transmitted to a TV receiver, simple explanation here, via cable, satellite, or antenna.
Cable TV stations, "originally" / "generally", refers to a low cost of entry Television presence. The programming for these channels are usually geared to a specific area of interest and do not have the same cost of operation and hence a lower quality of programming. Initially they were local in scope. Yes there are exceptions now that the space has been seen to be profitable.
The discussion was centering around the World Wide Web, port 80 protocol and functionality, not the Internet in general.
Slashdot Mirror
So. Since when has the United States ever adhered to an international treaty that it signed when it was seen to be getting in the way of what the US wanted to do.
No more brainless computer users.
Minority government.
Election coming sooner rather than later.
It will die on the order paper if it ever gets there.
Good points but irrelivant.
The fact of the matter is that preventing climate change does not create wealth, raise ones (monitary)standard of living or create and maintain jobs on a large scale. However, attempting to repairing the aftermath does.
It all comes down to 'votes and dollars' and it has been that way since the beginning of time. For proof just try to find 'The Ceders of Lebenon' or the forests on Easter Island not to mention the Dodo.
Want to start saving the envorinment, buy a bike and use it for any trip under 5KM.That is not the same. The doctor is not acting on his own initutive to remove the tumor in the early stages. I will be paying him to do so. So what if the West American Blue Tit goes extinct. It is not as if it is really doing anything other than looking pretty and all saving it will do is cost people jobs and thus the party in power votes.
The problem is that you cannot make real money preventing global warming. All you can do is to put yourself at an economic disadvantage.
However, there are mountians of govenment money to be made trying to correct the effects of it once it gets up and slaps people in the face.
So why try to stop it. Ride the tidal wave and make some real money in the future.
In that case they could read and write. In Biblical times in the Holy Land there were wolves and lions. These were the top carnivores and they are mentioned frequently in the Bible. In addition large herbivores such as elephants and buffalo are also mentioned. Now these are very impressive animals so one can see that they would be mentioned in and take center stage in several of the Biblical stories and in the civil records of the ancient societies of the area. Now in the Holy Land there also lived an even more impressive animal who's fossilized bones have been found in Jordan, http://www.pellamuseum.org/Pella_Museum/Vertebrate /jibal_ghuzayma.htm. This animal was several times larger than and elephant. It was in fact a dinosaur and it is never motioned in the Bible. It is never mentioned in any clay tablet from any of the Biblical civilizations, it is never mentioned in the writings of the Egyptian empire. Imagine an animal that is 12 to 14 meters long and lived at the same time as people in the area and this animal is never once mentioned in either the Biblical or historical record. It was 3 to 4 times the size of an African elephant. It was never reported to have eaten up a villages crops, it was never reported to have accidentally stepped on any one and it was never used as a sacrifice.
Ok, so now lets move on to to Syria where bones belonging to a species of 13 foot high camels have been found, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219310,00.html . These animals are twice the size of any description of any camel that was found in any of the Biblical or historical record of the time. Why were the never used like other camels. Why are there no stories about some chap going against the popular wisdom of the day an instead of using the small camels trapped and used the wild giant camels.
Did people just over look these large and majestic beasts or or were these beasts just very good a hiding or maybe were they long gone before people ever arrived. After all they were supposedly taken aboard the Ark so they should be mentioned but they are not. No, not even one convincing description.
So English is not my first language, develope some manners.
Well if you want to FEEL like you live longer, just give up wine, women and song......
OK, so man and dinosaurs lived together. That must mean then, that all the Biblical hero's were pansies. I mean all they did was kill few wolves (David) and enter a Lions den (Daniel) . If they were real hero's why did they not slay one of the T-Rexes that were wondering around eating everything in sight or enter a den of hungry Velosoraptors. Then they would have been real hero's.
In there examples the closest thing to a cave drawing was only mineral stains on rock. The rest were 'modern' illistrations of accepted legends of the time. And as to the foot prints, a walking foot print does not look like any of those depicted.
You are aware of course that the Bible, as we know it today, was a govenment project........
We have lots of cave drawings of man with impressive animals like wooly mamoths and the like. So why are there not cave drawings of man with really impressive animals like the dinasaurs. I mean I I was impressed enought to paint the large elephant like creature you would think that a 20' high meat eating moster would at least reate a few pictures.
Class C address space for sale or rent. Only slightly used.
Opps my bad got two studies confused.
A 2004 study by a Open Source Risk Management, a company selling insurance against risks of using open-source software, concluded that Linux could violate at least 283 patents, 27 of them Microsoft patents.
If you read the actual report that the magic number came from you will see that Microsoft only holds about 11% of the 235 'unchalenged' patents that linux 'possibly' infringes on.
Read what I posted I never said that the Coalition Forces ( 66% were U.S. 34% other countries) in the Liberation of Kuwait were Uniter Nations mercenaries. Although the United States and their coalition partners did make sure that they were operating under United Nations Resolution 660," a diplomatic formulation authorizing the use of force". What I said was that the cease fire was orchestrated by the members of United Nations Security Council and that there was not a separate cease fire between the United States and Iraq. Therefore any violation of the cease fire would be against the United Nations and not the United States. It would therefore be up to the United Nations to act if putative actions were called for and and not the United States. By acting outside the purview of the United Nations in this matter, by invading Irag in 2003 and not doing so in self defence, the United States acted contrary to their treaty obligations and thus 'illegally'.
The United Nations was not the law firm that wrote the resolution, that is not how the United Nations Security Council works, it was the one of the two parties to the agreement the other being Iraq. If any one could be considered the drafting law firm that would have to be the Russians since they created the initial draft of the ceasefire resolution which was later sponsored for ratification by the UN Security Council by Belgium, France, Romania, the United Kingdom, the United States and Zaire.
This ceasefire which you keep parading out was not negotiated with the United States but under the auspices of the United Nations as resolution 687 (http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/resolut ion_687.html). Therefore, it was up to the United Nations being the aggrieved party to initiate any putative actions against Iraq for any violations. The United Nations chose not to, the United States acted unilaterally against the will of the United Nations. Therefore, in the view of the United Nations the United States and their allies, as signatories to the United Nations charter, acted 'illegally'.
Yes when discussing Iraq, North Korea et la are all irrelevant. Except that, for the cascading and ever changing reasons given by the United States administration for the invasion of Iraq, could be and have been applied to any number of other regions in the world. Some of which are even worse than Iraq ever was. And the United States administration always either differed to the United Nations or said that they were internal matters and without United Nations sanctioning it intervening would be a breach of International Law. So if this was the case for not intervening in say Rwanda, Cypress or North Korea, then to invade Iraq as it did with out express sanction from the United Nations Security Council, remember Iraq had not attacked the United States so there was no self defense clause to invoke, must also be a breach of International Law and thus by the United States administration's own admission, illegal.
Instead using half truths, the US Administration manufactured a big lie to initiate a self defense clause, which have been documented by both US and international sources and used it to try to implement the "Project for New American Century" (http://zfacts.com/p/775.html) using Iraq as the initial building block (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulszmnTbwjM)
References are slightly populist but core data is correct.
Again with the juvenile personal attacks. Do you really feel they enhance your position?
If violation of a United Nations brokered ceasefire was justification then why has North Korea not been invaded They after all are the larger threat. Not to mention Syria, Israel, India and Pakistan. After the first Gulf War Iraq was no threat to anyone but their own people and based on the United States published positions to the genocide in Rwanda, Darfour and many other places in the world that is not reason enough to invade a sovereign country even after repeated resolutions in the Security Counsel for the parties to stop.
Oh and if you replay again, please try to be adult about it.
And personal attacks on a poster stands your opinion in even higher state?
The United States attacked Iraq with out provocation. Iraq did not attack the United States. Instead they defied and made a nuisance of themselves to the United Nations. The United Nations did not sanction the attack because it and the rest of the international community saw no immediate or perceived threat. Hence the attack was 'morally', if not legally via international standards and conventions, illegal. It, the United States, was acting for purely political gain in the same manner as the Argentinian government did when they attacked the Falkland Islands. With essentially the same results both at home and abroad.
I said nothing about their military prowess. They were just right about being against the illegal invasion of Iraq. After all Iraq had no WMDs, they had nothing to do with 9/11 and, being a secular state, had nothing to do with any type of religious extremists and the leaders of the US knew this as has been proven by several Congressional and Senate hearings.
You probably still believe that all the 9/11 terrorists entered the US illegally via the 'open' Canadian border. When in actual fact the all entered the US legally from Europe and the Middle East using legal obtained documents.
And as the public is finding out now, they, the Dixie Chicks, were right.
Three things:
TV signals can be analog or digital. These signals can be then transmitted to a TV receiver, simple explanation here, via cable, satellite, or antenna.
Cable TV stations, "originally" / "generally", refers to a low cost of entry Television presence. The programming for these channels are usually geared to a specific area of interest and do not have the same cost of operation and hence a lower quality of programming. Initially they were local in scope. Yes there are exceptions now that the space has been seen to be profitable.
The discussion was centering around the World Wide Web, port 80 protocol and functionality, not the Internet in general.