Global summit studies placing Internet under U.N. control

[Restola]

Originally posted by p8ntball1016
god forbid the international community doesnt bend over for uncle sam.

Not regulating American buisnesses is bending over...

uh..k...

[-J�ker-]

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/p...perational.pdf

Do you know where Liberia even is? It is not near the Congo. 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!

Oh yeah!

And the Killer apes for our secret miltary attack force!

[p8ntball1016]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Oh yeah!

And the Killer apes for our secret miltary attack force!

somebody light this monkey!

[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?

[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.

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.