Global summit studies placing Internet under U.N. control

[FactsOfLife]

A global summit scheduled for later this month will look into whether to place the web under some form of UN control.

link to story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104413,00.html)

of course I expect the same people that protest the WTO to be there rioting in full force.:rolleyes:

[p8ntball1016]

since when are protests the same as riots?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by p8ntball1016
since when are protests the same as riots?

when they destroy property they cross then line, that's when.

is it really that hard to differentiate between a riot and a civil protest?

[Lopy-slopy]

Originally posted by p8ntball1016
since when are protests the same as riots?

Whenever the US or UN is involved.;)

[shartley]

I say “Sure!”… let the UN think they can control the Internet. LOL The UN can’t control anything else, what makes them think they can control the Internet which is vastly more difficult to control than some small 3rd World country. LOL

Talk about the Keystone Cops. HeeHee

[p8ntball1016]

protest
http://www.internationalanswer.org/images/j18/sarah/resized/J18Aerial2-sm.jpg
riot
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/94/128/more_riot_photos/LG.riotCOVER.JPG

[Lopy-slopy]

In that first pic you can't see the front of the crowd where the cops are probibly spraying the crowd with mace:D. The UN is a joke now, it's all the US. Look at what happend with iraq, The US will do whatever it wants no matter what anybody says. If you stand in between the US and oil, than you are going down.

[beam]

...and then they could elect Al Gore as Secretary General...I mean for the love of Pete he INVENTED the blasted thing.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Lopy-slopy
If you stand in between the US and oil, than you are going down.


if you really believe this, you need to be home schooled immediately....

[p8ntball1016]

Originally posted by Lopy-slopy
In that first pic you can't see the front of the crowd where the cops are probibly spraying the crowd with mace:D. The UN is a joke now, it's all the US. Look at what happend with iraq, The US will do whatever it wants no matter what anybody says. If you stand in between the US and oil, than you are going down. even though we alienated the entire world, its good oil prices went down 1/10 of a cent.

[Collegeboy]

It would be interesting to see exactly what is the UN talking about controlling. Could it be something that prevents China from blocking anything that has a link to something that isn't backed by the government? (ex. A good friend of mine who resides in Beijing right now can not use google, for google refused to do a special google.prc that only linked information that the government of China liked).

I think the fact that this report is coming from Fax News, speaks a lot for its one sidedness and complete anti-UN statements.



“The summit aims to jumpstart and speed access and adoption of new technologies through active collaboration and commitment from all,” said a WSIS information brief

Funny how that is lost in a see of trying to take over the world speech, the article also doesn’t go into the idea that the countries that are trying to get it passed are the ones that need the help to reach the internet out to local communities.

On my train ride from Moscow back to St. Petersburg, I talked to a girl from Omsk Russia. She was telling me how their area’s schools used to be funded by an American business man (I forgot his name), but because of the recent economic activities and all he had to stop his funding, so her area’s school had to resort to 50 year old soviet books or shut down, they decided to shut down. Can you imagine what a system like the internet would do to the educational aspects of this area?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I think the fact that this report is coming from Fax News, speaks a lot for its one sidedness and complete anti-UN statements.


Yes, maybe we could have some outlet like CNN who alllllways tells both sides of the story cover it...:rolleyes:

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


Yes, maybe we could have some outlet like CNN who alllllways tells both sides of the story cover it...:rolleyes:

How about we get are info from the BBC one of the few unbiased news stations

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


Yes, maybe we could have some outlet like CNN who alllllways tells both sides of the story cover it...:rolleyes:

Never said that. (Waiting for you to again take this simple and straight foward remark the wrong way)

[-Jôker-]

imho there are no major news stations that dont stretch facts or are unbiased

[Restola]

Originally posted by shartley
I say “Sure!”… let the UN think they can control the Internet. LOL The UN can’t control anything else, what makes them think they can control the Internet which is vastly more difficult to control than some small 3rd World country.
lol excellent idea. For the next few decades we'd just have to put up with them passing resolutions, but never following through.

I like it!

[BobTheCow]

Originally posted by beam
...and then they could elect Al Gore as Secretary General...I mean for the love of Pete he INVENTED the blasted thing.
LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

Interesting... I'd imagine (if this all actually worked as planned) this would put a huge crimp on things like geocities and yahoo... basically any internet-based company that offers free services. :(

[than205]

Originally posted by -Jôker-
imho there are no major news stations that dont stretch facts or are unbiased

a possibility -
http://www.csmonitor.com/

[FactsOfLife]

that's a pretty good one, I read this one a lot as well.

JWR (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/)

[than205]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
that's a pretty good one, I read this one a lot as well.

JWR (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/)

Care to point out a few articles that I should read first?

[Lopy-slopy]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife



if you really believe this, you need to be home schooled immediately....

The US has fought so many wars in the middle east in the recent past, but has totaly ignored africa, where civil wars have been raging for years. Can you think of a reson why?, humm, the middle east is full of oil, africa? not so much.
Fighting for the people, mabey, but more like the one's in america at the fuel pumps, not the ones they bobmb everyday.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Lopy-slopy


The US has fought so many wars in the middle east in the recent past, but has totaly ignored africa, where civil wars have been raging for years. Can you think of a reson why?, humm, the middle east is full of oil, africa? not so much.
Fighting for the people, mabey, but more like the one's in america at the fuel pumps, not the ones they bobmb everyday.

Go watch Black Hawk Down! I guess the troops we lost in Somolia were there to plunder that country for their vast wealth of natural resources.

Or how about our marines in Liberia? Are they there to pump oil from the congo?:rolleyes:

Of course your country Canada is the paragon of moral virtue. Hey Lopy Slopy, how do you like living in America-Light?:p

[Lohman446]

You people annoy me some days

Do we not have a right to protect our own interests? Frankly, if Africa offered something that we had to have, then we would be in there as well. We supported very brutal dictators in South America in the war on Communism (this is totally misnamed, it was a war on totalatiasm (sp) communism is an economic system, not a system of government). The US has protected its own interests, and will likely. The world can either wake up to the fact and deal with it, or continue to make themselves a worthless organization that no longer has any power.

The American Service Person Act - AKA the Hague invasion act is a great example of this. Iraq - maybe. What if we had not gone to the middle east in the first place, to free Kuwait, what if we had let Iraq control more oil, what if we had not run an embargo against Iraq, it could have split apart OPEC perhaps. Saddam would have been considered an ally still - oil prices would have stayed low and WE WOULD HAVE NEVER RISKED AN AMERICAN LIFE.

America does often act to protect its own interests, it also takes on the job of policing the world - which needs to, the UN has proven itself incompetent and only good at giving speeches.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Lopy-slopy


The US has fought so many wars in the middle east in the recent past, but has totaly ignored africa, where civil wars have been raging for years. Can you think of a reson why?, humm, the middle east is full of oil, africa? not so much.
Fighting for the people, mabey, but more like the one's in america at the fuel pumps, not the ones they bobmb everyday.

Oh yeah, I left out Afghanistan's vast oil reserves from our recent campaigns!:rolleyes:

Did the Muslims in Kosovo turn over their oil to us too after we drove out the serbs?

Let's see that is two recent wars in an oil producing area versus 4 campaigns with no oil or wealth.....hmmm I guess we are mercenary bastards after all!:rolleyes:

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Go watch Black Hawk Down! I guess the troops we lost in Somolia were there to plunder that country for their vast wealth of natural resources.

Or how about our marines in Liberia? Are they there to pump oil from the congo?:rolleyes:



Go watch Congo! Diamonds, duh! :D :rolleyes:

[mag-hatter]

the U.N. can kiss it. im positive they will be the end of us all.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by than205


Care to point out a few articles that I should read first?

nope. I read a number of the columns on there on a daily basis.

the link wasn't to any specific one, just to an excellent site that gathers a lot of info in one place.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Lopy-slopy


The US has fought so many wars in the middle east in the recent past, but has totaly ignored africa, where civil wars have been raging for years. Can you think of a reson why?, humm, the middle east is full of oil, africa? not so much.
Fighting for the people, mabey, but more like the one's in america at the fuel pumps, not the ones they bobmb everyday.


But but the UN was supposed to be taking care of Africa!

Chalk up another one to the band of Incompetents.

[p8ntball1016]

god forbid the international community doesnt bend over for uncle sam.:rolleyes:

[FactsOfLife]

At this point I don't care if they "bend over".

As long as they stay the hell out of the way, I'll be happy.

They've long since stopped being a help, and have become a hindrance.

And tell me, all you internationalists, why would any American in their right minds hand over their own country's autonomy to some country like say, Libya?

[Restola]

Originally posted by p8ntball1016
god forbid the international community doesnt bend over for uncle sam.:rolleyes:
Not regulating American buisnesses is bending over...

uh..k...

[-Jôker-]

Originally posted by than205


a possibility -
http://www.csmonitor.com/

ok let me elaborate MAJOR i mean ABC,MSNBC,CBS,CNN,Fox News and many big news papers or periodicals

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Go watch Black Hawk Down! I guess the troops we lost in Somolia were there to plunder that country for their vast wealth of natural resources.

i wouldn't suggest watching blackhawk down if he wanted an *accurate* portrayal of what happened.



Oh yeah, I left out Afghanistan's vast oil reserves from our recent campaigns!

i guess we didn't ACTUALLY build that oil pipeline through afghanistan...it was all a lie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[impostal22]

Or how about our marines in Liberia? Are they there to pump oil from the congo?

i'm not sure if the sarcasm is about us taking oil in congo or using liberia to take it from congo..if it's about us taking oil in congo...i refer you to this:

http://www.heritageoilcorp.com/ims/pdf/Congo%20Pipeline%20Operational.pdf

[Albinonewt]

So now we send troops to protect Canadian oil interests?

Get off that bent guys.

As for the UN regulating the internet. It's a terrible idea. Why? Because the UN is too global and too diverse to ever make a good decision about anything. They can't work in a timely manner, they can't form a majority consensus on any but the most mundane issues, and they simply can't function as a law enforcing regulatory body over something as fluid, dynamic, and changing as the internet. They are simply not equipped to do it.

Take CB's point about China's suppression of the internet. Now, I think it would be just great if they opened up all the internet to everyone, but who is going to do it? The UN? How? China is part of the UN and will probably not vote to overturn it's own internal policies. Further, even if the UN does turn it over on the Chinese what is going to make them actually do it? We can't get cooperation out of Iran and North Korea when it comes to really important world wide issues so instead we should leverage the collective weight of the world to get google into China? I don't think so.

[Albinonewt]

And Black Hawk down is a (in movie terms) fairly accurate potrayal of what happened. Nothing is perfect, but it is pretty damn close.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by impostal22


i'm not sure if the sarcasm is about us taking oil in congo or using liberia to take it from congo..if it's about us taking oil in congo...i refer you to this:

http://www.heritageoilcorp.com/ims/pdf/Congo%20Pipeline%20Operational.pdf

Do you know where Liberia even is? It is not near the Congo.:rolleyes: Of COurse it was sarcasm.

And as for your pipeline in afghanistan. From where to where? Iran to Pakistan? Details, proof please?

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-


Go watch Congo! Diamonds, duh! :D :rolleyes:

Oh yeah!:D

And the Killer apes for our secret miltary attack force!:rolleyes:

[p8ntball1016]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Oh yeah!:D

And the Killer apes for our secret miltary attack force!:rolleyes: somebody light this monkey!:D

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
And Black Hawk down is a (in movie terms) fairly accurate potrayal of what happened. Nothing is perfect, but it is pretty damn close.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020304&s=brune20020221

http://www.iacenter.org/blackhawk.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2002/0121somalia.htm

read those, get back to me.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye

And as for your pipeline in afghanistan. From where to where? Iran to Pakistan? Details, proof please?

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php

some nice highlights:

"The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is." - Dick Cheney

In 1995, California-based UNOCAL proposed the construction of an oil pipeline from Turkmenistan, south through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Arabian Sea. Yasushi Akashi, U.N. Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, was critical of "outside interference in Afghanistan" in 1997, which, he said, "is now all related to the battle for oil and gas pipelines. The fear is that these companies and regional powers are just renting the Taliban for their own purposes."
-----------------

you probably think we went into iraq to fight terrorism too right? :rolleyes:

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by impostal22


http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020304&s=brune20020221

http://www.iacenter.org/blackhawk.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2002/0121somalia.htm

read those, get back to me.

Ok, link one
But that's exactly what Brendan Sexton III did in front of a group of nearly 200 students at Columbia University on February 11. Sexton, who has appeared in such movies as Boys Don't Cry and Welcome to the Dollhouse, said the film oversimplifies and inaccurately portrays Somalis as "savages without any reason to oppose the US military presence in Somalia."

Liberal arthouse movie actor is upset that when in the beginning of the movie the main character clearly explains the desperate and terrible conditions the Somalis were forced to live in that the character's speech was not accompanied by a 8 hour documentary on French Cabaret singers. It's easy to say the film portrays the Somalis as thoughtless savages. It's also a lie. The Somali that captures the Durant was very civil and educated. The characters take time to talk about how desperate the Somali's situation is, and the first Somali captured in the movie goes so far as to say "don't think because I was raised without electricity I'm simple" to which General Garrison and his subordinate agreed when they spoke in private. So that complaint is nothing but a lie.

Link 2


The second link, posted by ANSWER. That's like me telling you that because the Christian Coalition thinks abortion is bad then it automatically is. ANSWER is programmed to hate America and to complain about EVERYTHING. They repeat the same tissue of lies they always say.


Link 3

Says almost nothing about the content of the movie (which is what we're talking about) except to make the obvious claim that all our troops did was murder a lot of civillians. I have no problem believing that while under constant gun fire in the botched mission our troops accidentally fired at targets they would not normally have fired on. But, the implication that while defending themselves from hundreds of armed militia they took time out of the busy day to just butcher unarmed civillians is just plain stupid.

Now, would you like to cite some real sources? Or just the same old propaganda ones?

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Albinonewt

ANSWER is programmed to hate America and to complain about EVERYTHING.

Now, would you like to cite some real sources? Or just the same old propaganda ones?

yes, i'm sure ANSWER is a bunch of brainwashed zombies, eager to destroy the motherland.:rolleyes:

why is it propaganda when it supports my point but it's fact when it supports yours? (i don't mean YOU specifically, i mean more generally that people throw the word propaganda out there because the facts-turned-propaganda don't agree with their side).

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by impostal22
why is it propaganda when it supports my point but it's fact when it supports yours? (i don't mean YOU specifically, i mean more generally that people throw the word propaganda out there because the facts-turned-propaganda don't agree with their side).

Because you choose the most left wing, biased, and unreliable sources you can find. ANSWER's job is try to convince people that all war no matter what is bad and racist, so everything they say regarding war is, by definition, propaganda. They're not a new service or a think tank, or an information gathering collective, they're people with a definitive agenda and their goal is to convince all of us that they're right. And their goal is a radically left goal, the magical end of all war and racism everwhere. Therefore their information is slanted towards that radical posistion, which is why it shouldn't be trusted by anyone, ever. Feel free to support ANSWER, but don't listen to anything they say.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


Because you choose the most left wing, biased, and unreliable sources you can find. ANSWER's job is try to convince people that all war no matter what is bad and racist, so everything they say regarding war is, by definition, propaganda. They're not a new service or a think tank, or an information gathering collective, they're people with a definitive agenda and their goal is to convince all of us that they're right. And their goal is a radically left goal, the magical end of all war and racism everwhere. Therefore their information is slanted towards that radical posistion, which is why it shouldn't be trusted by anyone, ever. Feel free to support ANSWER, but don't listen to anything they say.

i'll have to research ANSWER more, thanks for the tip. i was making more of a general statement about propaganda accusations rather than attacking yours.:)

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by impostal22
In 1995, California-based UNOCAL proposed the construction of an oil pipeline from Turkmenistan, south through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Arabian Sea. Yasushi Akashi, U.N. Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, was critical of "outside interference in Afghanistan" in 1997, which, he said, "is now all related to the battle for oil and gas pipelines. The fear is that these companies and regional powers are just renting the Taliban for their own purposes."


So a proposed pipeline from almost 9 years ago is your smoking gun?:rolleyes:

Timely aren't we!:p

[Indigo]

LMFAO....The UN in my opinion is a joke giving them control over the internet would not be a very wise move doing that would be like giving a loaded gun to a five year old.Here is a couple of links what the UN recently did.

UN rules Canada should ban spanking
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35000

UN trying to ban personal ownership of guns including the US
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33584

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


So a proposed pipeline from almost 9 years ago is your smoking gun?:rolleyes:

Timely aren't we!:p

whoa..i'm so stuck in the 90s..i keep thinking 1995 was like 5 years ago...it's so weird...i'm really stuck at the century turn over...but STILL...lol...ok ok *goes back to researcH*

[p8ntball1016]

Originally posted by Indigo
LMFAO....The UN in my opinion is a joke giving them control over the internet would not be a very wise move doing that would be like giving a loaded gun to a five year old.Here is a couple of links what the UN recently did.

UN rules Canada should ban spanking
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35000

UN trying to ban personal ownership of guns including the US
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33584 Next time could you PLEASE not use a source as biased as that page?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by p8ntball1016
Next time could you PLEASE not use a source as biased as that page?

why? does it invalidate the basic facts of the story? No, it does not.

[MaChu]

OMG that is freaking hilarious. Spanking? BUWAHAHAHHAAHA! What next? They gonna say that must use the "Time Out" method or what? UN Peacekeeper forces are going to come and arrest me? LOL!

[impostal22]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


why? does it invalidate the basic facts of the story? No, it does not.

yet bias seems to invalidate the basic facts of every source i've posted. interesting how this works..

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by impostal22


yet bias seems to invalidate the basic facts of every source i've posted. interesting how this works..

No, just your almost a decade old sources!:rolleyes:

Wait, now we can slam Clinton as a puppet of big oil!:p

[Lohman446]

Originally posted by MaChu
OMG that is freaking hilarious. Spanking? BUWAHAHAHHAAHA! What next? They gonna say that must use the "Time Out" method or what? UN Peacekeeper forces are going to come and arrest me? LOL!

Nah, there gonna watch you and whine about it, as long as you do not directly spank them they cannot use there arms or armor to interfere.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


No, just your almost a decade old sources!:rolleyes:

Wait, now we can slam Clinton as a puppet of big oil!:p

lol i wasn't referring to you 1stdeadeye..i admitted that 9 year old documents don't help my case at all.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by impostal22


lol i wasn't referring to you 1stdeadeye..i admitted that 9 year old documents don't help my case at all.

But your article proves that Clinton was a puppet of big oil, so I like it!:p

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


But your article proves that Clinton was a puppet of big oil, so I like it!:p

lol so it does...