Iraq Aftermath

Instead of your cryptic beating around the bush posts, why don't you be a little more specific.

I definitely will not take the time to read this discussion all over again. I will read a post carefully before replying, maybe you could just come out of your hiding spot and tell me what you're talking about.

Well the reality is this.

This forum, however international, is mainly dominated by Americans. They have a larger population than most, therefore you will see more Americans posting here.

Americans are infatuated with politics from birth and everyone is a Presidential wannabe or will stand by the presidents every moev and decision.

NO matter WHAT subject is started in these forums, politics will almost certainly be brought into the discussion somewhere, whether legality, infringement of Constitutional rights, what the OTHER countries are doing etc.

Get used to it.

IF ya can't beat 'em, join 'em or find another forum.

Technical sophistication? It seems that there is some confusion on consumer products and services with telecommunications infrastructure.

The backbone of any economy is logistics and communications. Then a fabric of financial strength pulls these together into a living and breathing economy. While energy, water, and medical services are important in the hierarchy of needs they do little good when no one can pay for them.

There are three types of economies. They are Local, National, and International. Telecommunications would allow banks to move money around at the international and national level so that at the local level people can borrow money then pay the interest that creates money. This created money in turn is then loaned out expanding the Iraqi economy and would be used to rebuild Iraq!

However, Islam forbids the use of credit so this would be a difficult barrier to overcome even though Iraq is considered to be secular. Interest could be viewed as an evil of Western influence. Especially since there is a belief that the United States is the New Babylon in many peoples eyes. Specific references in Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation in the Judeo/Christian Bible suggest this to be the case.

Chas said: Walter Cronkite is perhaps the most trusted newsman to ever anchor the US evening news. If he is so concerned about the Bush administrations Iraq policies, I believe it is time for anyone who still supports the actions taken to re-evaluate their position.

Chas, are you saying that I should believe what Walter Cronkite says because he is "perhaps the most trusted newsman to ever anchor the US evening news"?

The only one I really trust on any of the big three networks is Ted Koppel. He is the only one who doesn't seem to have any hidden agenda or slant. No matter who he interviews or what the topic is, he always is courteous, and he always asks the same type of probing (but not condescending) questions.

Too bad ABC doesn't let Ted Koppel anchor the evening news, or better yet, be in charge of the news department.

jul646 said: But has anyone bothered to count the Iraqi children who are the innocent victims of this invasion? Even before the invasion started, Australian MP Mark Latham drew attention to the inevitable loss of children's lives that would result.

Jul:

Please explain all of the Iraqis who CHEERED for the Americans, British, and yes, Australians. The average Iraqi was ELATED and OVERJOYED that we liberated them.

You can sit back in your comfortable chair, a long distance from the actual situation, and have all kinds of opinions about "the children" (Bill Clinton was a master at weaving in "the children" to every scheme he tried). If you watched the news coverage, however, of the actual events, you saw that the children, and their parents, were VERY GLAD that we came.

I vote with those whose lives were affected by the action, rather than with someone who is full of theories.

I would say that most of the people contributing to this thread don't consider it to be a waste of time. There are other sides to life, other than IT technical problems.

Trying to keep it separated would be very difficult. As OzMedia pointed out, Americans are infatuated with politics.

Of course that doesn't mean that people from other countries don't have a similar problem.

OZ - a very intelligent and adult come back there ... shows your that you are very mature and can withstand a debate ... NOT ...

That wild country camping trip must be getting to you

Basic infrastructure like water, sewage, power and roads require technology that hasn't changed too much in the last century or so. They tend to be things that have lots of linear connections and therefore require require lots of work to put them in place.

They also require distribution nodes and special processing areas. (i.e. switching yards, power plants, sewage treatment plants, etc.) These are relatively mature technologies and require work to put them into place.

Telecommunications, on the other hand, could leapfrog dated technology and go wireless, saving a lot of money by avoiding a lot of the phone lines that would otherwise have to be set up. Wireless networks and GPS enabled cell phones would make it possible to make that leap and avoid installing obsolete technology that can be disabled with a backhoe or wire cutters.

It would, of course, introduce other vulnerabilities. But defending a set of cell phone towers and wireless hubs would be easier than defending a network of phone lines.

I can bitch and critize about something - and have no clue of what should of been done. And tell the person that came up with the first idea and ran with it - he was wrong - and come up with something else ...

Sounds like you don't want to take the responsibility or the risk of coming up with a legit idea - a fresh thought - something original - because of fear of people like yourself critizing your idea - and you not being able to defend it ..

You will never understand my point - and I will never accept yours ... so we agree to disagree.. Enjoy the wild life - and have a Miller on US

I don't know the exact state of Iraq...but do they need phones and cell phones now?

If you are talking about terrorism....then the terrorists can attack even the seweage treatment plants....electric transformers etcetra.

for mankind or otherwise:

http://fodors.iexplore.com/res/explorer_armstrong.jhtml

On Sunday, July 20, the crew ate a quick breakfast, and then Armstrong and Aldrin crawled through a tunnel into the lunar module (or LM), which would carry the astronauts to the moon's surface. Armstrong fired the engines, powering the LM toward the surface of the moon. After a close call with a crater, Armstrong set the LM down on the moon's surface. "The Eagle has landed," Armstrong reported. With a billion people watching on television, Armstrong and Aldrin donned their space suits, opened the hatch, and climbed down a ladder to the chalky surface, where Armstrong spoke the immortal words: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." After a two-hour moonwalk, the two astronauts left behind a plaque that read, "Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon, July 1969, A.D. We came in peace for all mankind." Today, the 70-year-old Armstrong lives with his wife on a farm in Lebanon, Ohio.

Once again, your own pithy but misapplied cliche is again used to demonstrate your preadolescent worldview.

Obviously, your primary argument is that anyone who disagrees with you is either uninformed or a jingoistic follower of President Bush. You dismiss alternate views by dismissing the source as somehow less valid in origin.

You opine often and arrogantly on any and all topics, but your simplistic and fragile arguments fold under serious scrutiny. Your hubris is NOT justified.

You are not the towering intellect that you envision yourself to be. If your communications skills are as substandard at work as they are here, then I can certainly understand your frustration from your complaints being ignored. I suspect that your immature approach is just as tedious there as here.

Were it not likely to result in your increased presence here, I would advise you to ask your employer to telecommute, for the sake of your coworkers.

The visual I get of the Chinese space program are comical flashbacks of Godzilla movies of their HQ. The cheesy outfits everyone is wearing with the big red panic button in the middle of the command center to save the day and annoying beeping sounds with the people pointing demonstrativly in a semi controlled panic.

And yes I know it was Japanese movies, not Chinese, but tell me you dont have that visual in your head, lol.

I am actually happy for them striving for the stars and hope that this doesnt turn into a military phobia. I also hope their ship doesnt look cooler than ours. What do you suppose their freeze dried space food is?

I find that some people can't accept a difference of opinion. As a result, the poster resorted to name calling.
I've had enough wasting time with the idiot so I stoop to his/her level to hopefully appease the lunatic.

too bad it took you a bunch of posts to understand that your way of thinking outdates mine by light years. Get some Depends and let the rest of us move on with the world.

Cheers Jim,
OM

"I'd like 5,000 packs of Ramen noodles....TO GO"!

They probably didn't need any on this trip, only a few orbits.

I observed on TV last night that physical barriers are being erected around Australia's Parliament House, at a further distance than is usual, to keep protestors at bay when President Bush visits Australia next week.

One of the main issues for discussion between John Howard and George Bush will be the possibility of a free trade agreement beteen the two countries.

However, what the public will learn about the results of these talks will no doubt be determined by what Howard and Bush are prepared to reveal. My principal objection to the agreement made between Howard and Bush some time ago is that NOTHING (apart from the general topic of free trade) about the agenda of these talks has been revealed to the public.

John Howard has committed Australia to an agreement with America, but has kept the public completely in the dark as to which issues may be involved.

The Kurds of northern Iraq are marking the 15th anniversary of the chemical attack carried out by Iraqi Government forces on the town of Halabja, where at least 5,000 people, many of them women and children, died in a single day. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2854019.stm

OZZIE -

Once again you show up for a battle of with with an unloaded weapon...

Lest you dismiss this source as pawns of President Bush, Note that this is a BBC story, an news organization critical of Tony Blair's decision to join the US in the war in Iraq.

Of course one might make the case that Saddam destroyed his weapons afterward.

I guess that when he threw the UN weapons inspectors out of the country, he then said "I'm glad those guys are out of the way so I can get on with the business of destroying these weapons"

You don't know jack about Iraq, world politics, history, economics, business, or human nature. You argue baseless generalities that make it painfully obvious that your grip on reality is tenuous at best.

What's truly amazing about you us that you think you know a lot about the US and Americans, apparently moreso than native Americans! You couldn't be more wrong on so many things and yet you have this desire to repeatedly define what this country thinks, what makes it work, and why it does what it does.

I don't crush you again and again because we disagree. I disagree on friendly and intellectual terms with lots of other members. You on the other hand, are a sanctimonious blowhard who attempts to project every single personal shortcoming on anyone who disagrees with you.

You accuse Americans of many things that manifest themselves in your approach to the debate here, from condescension to name calling.

Why don't you post a link or two backing up some of your more outrageous claims made in this thread. I would make a sincere effort to look at them to better understand your views.

If you do not, then prepare to have your assertions picked apart and refuted. Even if you are so dense as to believe you are seen as rational here, rest assured that others here will recognize you for the monumental twit that I judge you to be...

Are simply observations. Observations create knowledge, opinions, questions and answers.

"It is particularly offensive when presented by those who repeatedly pose a singleminded (anti Bush) viewpoint and cannot even begin to defend it factually or rationally."

Although I haven't really been on the Presidential bandwagon with other US Presidents, this is the first where I've wanted to express my disbelief and distrust of his actions, maybe he should just act WITHIN America then everyone else won't have a negative opinion of him.

"If we are so infatuated by politics, then doesn't that confirm there is a lot of independent thought going on?"

NOT AT ALL. By Infatuated I mean that anything goes and anything is followed and believed in just because of who he is. I don't know but I assume that political dicussions surround your water cooler oh so often. Having a unique opinion would banish you from the group, yet sharing like opinions would be accepted. This also shows the INTEREST in politics that American's share and not neccessarily education.

"It is particularly offensive when presented by those who repeatedly pose a singleminded ..."

If your offended by personal opinions you're in the wrong discussion.

Car coming...!

You will notice that I mentioned that the 'infatuation' applies to other countries too.

Haven't heard any comments about that as of this moment.

Anyway, I've gotten to the point that I discount lots of what OzMedia says, especially when he makes gross generalizations like the one of either running for President or blindly agreeing with the current President.

And when profanity and/or name calling is brought into play, I consider that to be a point for the opposition. If you have to resort to those tactics, then you must be in a weak position.

Max, having an opinion of me is completely fine, I built your opinion of me and you follow it well.

Having an opinion of my friends and associates is not acceptable unless they are here to defend themselves.

First of all you have NO CLUE whatsoever who I know and who I befriend, just another misinterpretation of what I've told you and what is real. If you didi, you wouldn't make such statements, instead you'd want to be put in touch believe me, you would absolutely LOVE to meet my friends as your experience is very similar and you would stand to gain much.
(Insert OzMentalCase flame here...it's catchy I may just change my alias) I really can't believe that YOU have dug yourself down this low!

I won't even address the rest of your email because it is all covered by the above. I can guarantee you, without any wquestion whatsoever, I spend time with some of the most influential people in Western Canada, work with some of the largest corporations and am constantly bugged to introduce people to the circle.

I hang with headbangers and bikers too. I don't shut people out for WHAT they are, I accept people for WHO they are. Contrary to polpular TR belief, I am an excellent contributor to society, I organize relief concerts for the needy when disaster strikes and am highly esteemed as a helpful member of my community.

Unlike yourself, I greet people with open arms, I don't even know what political stand most people I meet are, actually NONE of them, it doesn't matter because people I know don't reflect their political beliefs in thier actions.

You have proven over and over again how important it is that your peers at TR respect you and how you will go to great lengths to retain that respect. If someone objects to your statements you speak as a group not an individual, this is also a big indication of insecurity and the need for other to agree with you. Weak and pathetic just to touch the surface.

Max, I try to avoid either political extreme when it comes to getting information.

I also account for the slant of the resources I use.

My primary news source is my local public radio station. They provide some of the most detailed local news in the area.

I know that most college based radio stations lean a little to the left.
That is the exuberance of youth.
Most people were more liberal in college than after a few years in the work force.

I do understand that many of the commentators on NPR lean to the left.
The news reporting however, is generally near the center.

Despite claims to the contrary, my local newspaper leans to the right. They have to, they serve the most conservative area of Michigan.

In the past few months, I have witnessed a few events that made the news.
Comparing reports from different sources, I wonder if we were all at the same event!

Chas

The concept of technologically leap frogging is on the right track. Chile has the most advanced GSM cellular network in the World. The kind of benefits they are enjoying for example include zipping your debit or credit card in a taxi cab. At the end of the day the driver stops at an ATM and withdraws his earnings for the day or can do his banking. Interest could be acrued on his balance giving him even more money to spend. Meanwhile the bank is loaning the money out, creating more money with the interest, and expanding the Iraqi economy. The link with International financial markets opens Iraq to world participation and growth.

Building roads, water plants, electric services will keep the local thugs busy and thier mind off of terrorist influences. Iraq has a group of people who are not manual labor what are they to do to be productive?

Recently, I was invited into an invitation only intellectual online forum that was not open to public debate. One had to meet specific educational and professional requirements plus post thier real names and photo. Once in the forum I carefully prepared a conference on a social and technical topic. The very first posting was "What no politics?"

From there the dialogue spawned into psycho-babble. One former US citizen in particular who now lives in India had a picture where he was attempting to recieve 'Chi from the Sea'. He alone lead the conference into an emotional argument with his strange philosophy that eternity equals morality times moral capacity squared, E=mc2. I withdrew from the conference because there was nothing intellectual about it.

In short, whenever someone was challenged on an intellectual level it almost always spiraled into an emotional dialogue. In some cases it became an emotional attack. I have been guilty of this early on in my online life.

So this forum is not much different after reading many of the postings. I imagine the Techrepublic staff have a ball sitting at thier round table reviewing these for thier next article. I would like to walk through thier office and see how many classic postings are hanging in cubicles.

Your correct lightyears ahead - of your thinking. Thanks -

Ahh -

Well, I don't know the state of affairs in Chile. Well I learnt something today. But just becos it works in Chile does not mean it will work in Iraq. But as a software developer it is nice to read about the technological advances in Chile. Kinda cool :-)

For the people who are not inclined towards manual labor, let them join the police, army, NGOs, Government, Politics, School, Colleges, Environment, Oil.....Whatever there exists...

Ok, when you talk about technology in Iraq. What exactly are you talking? Well so late in the discussion :-) For schools that don;t have a concrete roof slab, that might be a technological advancement.

You talked about international banking. To an extent it might work. But we still would have to pay the workers and others hard currency. I don't think they have many credit card systems in place. Maybe got to pay them in terms of Food, clothing,......ancient trading system :-)))))

Among some of the first things we want there is Peace and public support to democracy. Remember US dropped leaflets from the air. Then we needed the technology (aircrafts), now that we have a 'earthly' presence there, we could continue to do the PR work....

I don;t mind the Iraqis joining in a Linux vs Microsoft debate. They are free to join the world. But let us not thrust technology (atleast the ones not needed now) down their throats. I am sure their society will evolve and find the need for the technology. Lets be patient :-)

Time to let this thread die I suppose.

Your just playing the game now so the fun is fading from watching the irate defenders of the world.

Thanks for your bitching and ranting, hope to do it again soon.
OM :-)

that we are having such a conversation. but looks like you are getting little (or is it more) frusturated at me. Mr.OnBliss, eh :-)))))

I agree with you 100% when you say education is important.
Those bunch of kids who are running on the street are not going to dig the wells or build the roads...but they can be put into a school that does not brainwash them.

They can maybe just use a black board with some white chalks under the tree. They need not have the swinging/sliding boards or the white board that can print what is on it.

Give them more radios and TVs. Radio reaches far more people. You talked about lack of education. That is exactly what I am saying too...let us not concentrate on technology (alone)...but in getting those people up on their feet and allowing them to think for themselves....

Technology that can reach the masses is welcome. Others can wait for a bit..like setting up ISPs and Internet Kiosks. As these benefits a few. These are helpful at the college level. The people / culture need to be mature to use the technology.

Mr Onbliss was to draw attention that my response was on another posting level.

An issue is the brainwashing that has been going on in the Radical Islamic circles. That can be best managed through technology. A blackboard under a tree lends itself to creative teaching. However, a projection or downlink can be monitored more easily and mainstream knowledge can be imparted upon the young Iraqi's.

"The Kurds of northern Iraq are marking the 15th anniversary of the chemical attack carried out by Iraqi Government forces on the town of Halabja, where at least 5,000 people, many of them women and children, died in a single day."

Halabja and America are a LOOOOOOOONG way apart. This doesn't put Americans at risk of attack.

But that aside.
I have never said that SADDAM should NOT be removed from power. Nor have I said that I condone the repression and killing of Iraq's citizens. I do not condone BUSH's premature efforts at all. This war was started with improper planning and without proper support, this causing a messy and expensive attack that could cost America their furture as the World's Super Military Power.
(or the Worlds Main Defenders-WMD)

"First, the military plan took unnecessary risks, because it skimped on the forces made available to the commanders....Additional forces were available? they were even under orders to prepare for combat in Iraq. One more combat division, an additional force for securing the supply lines, more trucks and supply units to provide the redundancy that the inherent inefficiency of military operations requires?each would have reduced the risks. Some of the planners knew this; whether these forces would be used was the issue at the heart of the continuing tensions during the planning process. But they weren't deployed until it was too late."

"The second major criticism of the war plan?a profound flaw?concerned the endgame: it shortchanged postwar planning. Those who plan military operations for a war must take into account the aftermath. Four steps have to be considered: deployment; buildup; decisive combat; and postconflict operations. The destruction of enemy forces on the battlefield creates a necessary but not sufficient condition for victory."

"This brings us to the third major criticism of the government's plan: in attempting to retain full control, the administration raised the costs and risks of the mission by preventing our use of the very allies and resources that should have been available to the US. The Bush administration, thus far, has been unwilling to make use of the international legitimacy and support it could have from international institutions like the United Nations and NATO. Rather than gain leverage by means of international legitimacy, the United States, even through the long summer of 2003, refused to cede political authority to the UN or grant meaningful authority to any other international institution. Yet such legitimacy was critical if governments in Europe were to provide forces and resources to assist postwar efforts in Iraq"

http://tinyurl.com/r6gr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Impact on Human Rights cooperation:

"The experience of Operation Iraqi Freedom will likewise weaken international cooperation on human rights issues.27 Support for such efforts depends on their being clearly separated from attempts to advance the unilateral interest or agenda of any particular state."

"...nations have an inherent right to defend themselves by force against military aggression is a bedrock principle of international law. Without this guarantee, no nation would accept the constraints of law. But "defense against aggression" must be clearly and narrowly defined, least nations simply recast offensive acts as "defensive" ones -- a persistent problem ever since international covenants and treaties (such as the 1928 Kellogg-Briand pact) began weighing generally against "aggressive war"."

"With regard to the recent concerns about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Webster's (US Secretary of State Daniel Webster -1837) criteria would have allowed pre-emptive action:

>if Iraq was known to have the capability and inclination to attack,

>if Iraqi policy toward the United States or its allies had evinced a growing bellicosity,

>if Iraqi preparations for an attack were clearly underway, and

>if there were good reasons to believe that deterrence would not hold. "

"Although the United States has enjoyed a good decade of growth relative to other nations, the long-term trend favors a slow decline in America's relative position.

Twenty years from now several countries are likely to be able to give the United States a good run for its money -- on a regional basis, at least. This outcome is not preordained, however. It depends on a convergence of capacity and motive. A broader, more energetic exercise of US military power may provide the latter. "

http://tinyurl.com/r6h4

I'm not the only one questioning BUSH's motives and calling him an idiot for leading American citizens to their deaths.

Granted they need to get some basics completed and the new Iraqi council will be doing that.

However, this is the 'Tech Republic' forum and somehow we have to bring it back to technology. I guarantee you that there are think tanks in DC working on this. I would not be surprised if some of them belong to techrepublic and are seeking ideas from techies.

Thanks...to note that it is not frusturation. I had a fleeting thought that it might be the same reason that you mentioned. Just double-checked :-))

>>However, a projection or downlink can be monitored more easily and mainstream knowledge can be imparted upon the young Iraqi's.

Please elaborate on this when you get the chance.

Apart from attracting attention to a fellow member, looks like you reserve the Mr. to people you disagree with, right :-))

Mr. BC, Mr.Brisbane examples that I saw :-))

Is it like trying to be civil/nice or look down on some one else when the tought is that they are talking to a stupid fool :-))

It is amusing...

Another viwepoint
"The Kurds of northern Iraq are marking the 15th anniversary of the chemical attack carried out by Iraqi Government forces on the town of Halabja, where at least 5,000 people, many of them women and children, died in a single day."

Halabja and America are a LOOOOOOOONG way apart. This doesn't put Americans at risk of attack.

But that aside.
I have never said that SADDAM should NOT be removed from power. Nor have I said that I condone the repression and killing of Iraq's citizens. I do not condone BUSH's premature efforts at all. This war was started with improper planning and without proper support, this causing a messy and expensive attack that could cost America their furture as the World's Super Military Power.
(or the Worlds Main Defenders-WMD)

"First, the military plan took unnecessary risks, because it skimped on the forces made available to the commanders....Additional forces were available? they were even under orders to prepare for combat in Iraq. One more combat division, an additional force for securing the supply lines, more trucks and supply units to provide the redundancy that the inherent inefficiency of military operations requires?each would have reduced the risks. Some of the planners knew this; whether these forces would be used was the issue at the heart of the continuing tensions during the planning process. But they weren't deployed until it was too late."

"The second major criticism of the war plan?a profound flaw?concerned the endgame: it shortchanged postwar planning. Those who plan military operations for a war must take into account the aftermath. Four steps have to be considered: deployment; buildup; decisive combat; and postconflict operations. The destruction of enemy forces on the battlefield creates a necessary but not sufficient condition for victory."

"This brings us to the third major criticism of the government's plan: in attempting to retain full control, the administration raised the costs and risks of the mission by preventing our use of the very allies and resources that should have been available to the US. The Bush administration, thus far, has been unwilling to make use of the international legitimacy and support it could have from international institutions like the United Nations and NATO. Rather than gain leverage by means of international legitimacy, the United States, even through the long summer of 2003, refused to cede political authority to the UN or grant meaningful authority to any other international institution. Yet such legitimacy was critical if governments in Europe were to provide forces and resources to assist postwar efforts in Iraq"

http://tinyurl.com/r6gr
>>>>> ;>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>>>>>>><<<<<<< ;<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Impact on Human Rights cooperation:

"The experience of Operation Iraqi Freedom will likewise weaken international cooperation on human rights issues.27 Support for such efforts depends on their being clearly separated from attempts to advance the unilateral interest or agenda of any particular state."

"...nations have an inherent right to defend themselves by force against military aggression is a bedrock principle of international law. Without this guarantee, no nation would accept the constraints of law. But "defense against aggression" must be clearly and narrowly defined, least nations simply recast offensive acts as "defensive" ones -- a persistent problem ever since international covenants and treaties (such as the 1928 Kellogg-Briand pact) began weighing generally against "aggressive war"."

"With regard to the recent concerns about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Webster's (US Secretary of State Daniel Webster -1837) criteria would have allowed pre-emptive action:

>if Iraq was known to have the capability and inclination to attack,

>if Iraqi policy toward the United States or its allies had evinced a growing bellicosity,

>if Iraqi preparations for an attack were clearly underway, and

>if there were good reasons to believe that deterrence would not hold. "

"Although the United States has enjoyed a good decade of growth relative to other nations, the long-term trend favors a slow decline in America's relative position.

Twenty years from now several countries are likely to be able to give the United States a good run for its money -- on a regional basis, at least. This outcome is not preordained, however. It depends on a convergence of capacity and motive. A broader, more energetic exercise of US military power may provide the latter. "

http://tinyurl.com/r6h4

I'm not the only one questioning BUSH's motives and calling him an idiot for leading American citizens to their deaths, these are just TWO examples of similar opinions.

The idea of a centralize point to manage the knowledge being imparted can control and inject necessary information to steer subversive ideas or attempts to brainwash to more docile thought processes. It would remove local influences that would require intensive monitoring to ensure proper training.

Mainstream knowledge such as history, mathematics, science, and even exposure to other faith based systems could be presented. So that independent thinkers are developed. Once this occurs it would be difficult to mislead the people.

In 650 to 662 AD Muhammad attempted to establish Islam in a literate town and the people rejected him. He then went to a town where the people were illiterate and forced the people to Islam.

This pattern has persisted even to today. Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, or the Kashmire Region. The people were kept ignorant. Women are not educated and boys are removed from schools early. In Israel the Arabs educate the boys at a young age to die for Allah. They tell them that they will get a 1000 virgins. These suicide bombers wrap the genitals to protect them after they blow themselves up. It is a sick thing they are doing to thier own.

I think we could sagely use technology to solve many issues quickly and responsively.

...you said
>>The idea of a centralize point to manage the knowledge being imparted can control and inject necessary information to steer subversive ideas or attempts to brainwash to more docile thought processes. It would remove local influences that would require intensive monitoring to ensure proper training.

To me even that looks like Brainwashing, the only difference is that it is we who are doing that..

But I agree on your other paragraphs. Education is hugely important.

The problems in Kashmir is just not religion. It is the Pakistan government that is playing the drama there. US has been shielding that country for a long time now.

We cannot make efforts to control information or we risk being as repressive as the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

We must seek to win hearts and minds, not control hearts and minds.

The core goal of the creation of educational infrastructure should be to present a solid, positive, and enriching ALTERNATIVE to radical Islam.

Were we successful at creating the curriculum and all of the teachers in the country, we do not and will not control the Mosques. They will continue with indoctrination of hate.

We must articulate individual prosperity vs faith based poverty, freedom vs repression, and the fallacy of enforced virtue.

Read this:
"America, the freest nation on earth, is also the most virtuous nation on earth"

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-dsouza070203.asp

This guy hits the nail on the head...

the treaty will be first discussed in the House
of Representatives, which is controlled by the Government.

It will then be presented to the Senate, which is not controlled by the Government. While the Government holds a greater number of seats in the Senate than the Labor Party, there are currently about 14 Senators who belong to minor parties, or who are Independents. The numbers are: Govt (34), ALP (27), minor parties and Independents (14). So according to my calculations, if 11 of these Senators who do not represent either of the two major parties vote with the Labor Oppostion, then the legislation will not pass.

However before being presented as Legislation, if copies of the Treaty are issued to all members of parliament, then questions may be addressed to the Prime Minister in a one-hour session known as Question Time.

So the general answer to your question is that details of any treaty may only be known to the public at the stage where the Senate either passes or challenges any legislation in relation to those treaties.

My complaint was, and still is, that John Howard has not at this stage informed the public of any of the details of the treaty, which will probably be finalised when President Bush holds talks with the Prime Minister in the near future. I think that the people should have been informed of the issues which are to be discussed.

Normally when the Prime Minister sets off to have talks with leaders of other countries, the public is given information regarding the principal issues to be discussed.

It is impossible to make a simple comparison with the Australian system of government and the American system, because your president is chosen in a separate election.

So that, in terms of blame, the Prime Minister will be equated with the government: Blame the government, and you will be blaming the Prime Minister; blame the Prime Minister and you will be blaming the government.

As an aside, I think these TR discussions have been very helpful in letting at least two Australians learn more about how the American system of Government works, and letting a number of Americans learn more about how the Australian system works. Our two countries have been allies for a long time, and will no doubt continue to be for a long time into the future.

Did you know, by the way, that it was only via a radio telescope at Parkes, New South Wales, that you were all able to see Neil Armstrong make that first step on the moon?

You wrote,

INTELLECTUAL FORUMS
Recently, I was invited into an invitation only intellectual online forum that was not open to public debate. One had to meet specific educational and professional requirements:

You went on to say,

In short, whenever someone was challenged on an intellectual level it almost always spiraled into an emotional dialogue.

I, am not suggesting anything, other than;
the first paragraph makes you sound very pompous, having read this and some other posts by you i get the impression that you wish to impress.

The second paragraph suggests to me that, questions posed by you which you believe are an intellectual challenge,,,, may, by some people, be seen as psuedo-intellectual techno-babble which insults their intelligence.

but hey, you can follow a link to my bio so you must be pretty sharp.

Intellectual answer only please, no emotional dialogue!

??)

It's probably worth pointing out that immediately after George Bush had those people armed, trained and paid with US dollars - many (if not most) of them have returned to their former lives.

Since the US is currently waging a war against that country - it's probably not too bright of them to pay, train and arm their enemies.

I think that everyone that supported the war agains Iraq for having weapons of mass destruction was just because president Bush said so. Many people from different parts of the world believe that the only reason why Bush attacked Iraq was to take control of the country's vast source of oil. For starters, weapons inspectors never found such weapons, and the US just got them out and declared war -- as if they knew exactly where they were located and in what amount.

Well no weapons have been found so far, over 500 american soldiers died (and counting), millions of dollars are continously being spent, and the country's credibility has been serously compromised. All this comes to the conclusion that president Bush is either a liar or incompetent. As for the capture of Saddam and the reconstruction of Iraq, well people see it only as a way to make up for the mistake. After all, let us not remember that this was not the main reason to go to war, and the country didn't even support enough evidence to get UN support.

Now going to war skipping the United Nations is serious. That just goes to show that president Bush doesn't get along well with international treaties. Even when he was governor of Texas, he actually attempted to set a nuclear waste land close to the Mexican border, in violation of a international treaty between the two countries of how close to the border can the country place a nuclear waste land.

On the other hand, the American media has been particularly generous with the president, as they try to focus more on the bright side than anything else. The media from other countries however shows both side of the story, focusing not only on the reconstruction of Iraq, but also how US troops strongly protect Iraq's oil headquarters while the rest of the country is a major victim of crime and violence. The president will better do something quick before it all this goes down even further. Even thought the media is finally starting to question Mr. Bush for the war, he will continue to defend his side no matter what, and a lot will still be left unsaid.

good answer!

This thread is pretty old. Although these "accusations" were made some time ago, they are quickly becoming a bigger topic of interest as the election nears.

I don't know where it is, it was along time ago now but there was a US Embassy Report to Congress that outlined all of your thoughts I'd have to dig through (I think THIS thread) to find it but it is easily found by searching for the US Embassy reports to Congress. In short, it outlined the interest in Iraq's oil. The Oil-for-food program and exactly what sanctions were being breached and why. It definitely didn't support the existence of WMD.