dan_iv

possibly, depends on what widescreen resolution problem you are referring to. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg/+bug/67369

Linux is all i run at home, currently ubuntu Feisty from alpha stages... as I dont' play games it does everything nicely, photo printing, ipod, i can even connect my cheap motorola cell phone and transfer media to it.

i was kinda wondering the same thing so I did a search... this will explain it... http://www.waterless.com/images/urinal1.gif

Nastiest storms I have seen in the 6 years I've been here, and those funnel clouds they were reporting were heading my way too. the culdesac I live on was flooded with over 1 foot of water at one point where the storm drain couldn't handle it...

YES!

Ubuntu

a friend recommended it to me over a year ago, unless your actively looking for a job it appears to be a waste of time IMHO.

good evidence, are they working with the Illuminati on it?

When we the US starts enriching uranium, or starts testing nuclear weapons then the UN as an entity I'm sure will request inspections take place. It's not against any law or treaty to have WMD according to the treaty, however creating new weapons is not permissible, and if the US begins creating new weapons, or states that we are enriching uranium for peacefull purposes without co-operation from UN members, than it will be the responsibility of the UN to ensure that inspections take place.

I guess you forgot about "Desert Fox", th e strikes that Clinton ordered on Iraq... the only difference between them was at what scale was necessary to achieve the same objective, both Bush Sr. and Clinton Failed to achieve the objective of securing Iraq at those times, and sadly we are still failing to meet the objective.

I have, you dismissed the verbiage preceding the articles you cited from H.J.Res.114. The resolution passed is stated below, the whole point I was trying to make was that this is not a one man show... The first paragraph reads... "Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq"... feel free to read the rest. both the house and senate passed the resolution to use the armed forces against Iraq... and another paragraph reads. "Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';" so, yes they did pass a resolution. The bad thing about this thread is everyone reading it probably thinks I'm some sort of conservative right wing nut job. I may be a nut job but I'm only searching for the truth.

Come on, I'm getting really sick of people stating that Bush started the war, he does not have the power alone to initiate any military conflict. The 2nd session of the 107th congress unanimously passed the resolution to invade Iraq. if you want to point a finger, blame the US society as a whole for electing the representatives that passed the resolution 77 - 23. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame, even a majority of Dems supported the resolution. (25 yeas- 23 nays). http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

It also states that they were still, (after over a decade), destroying weapons which were suppose to have been destroyed by the governing regime well before. "An UNMOVIC missile team supervised at the Taji Technical Battalion the destruction of 3 more Al Samoud 2 missiles, one launcher, and some parts of warhead and propellant tank. Another missile team went to the Al Qaid Warhead Filling Plant of the Al Qaa Qaa State Company and placed tags onto 5 Al Fatah warheads."

None of those countries have signed the treaty

well according to the UNMOVIC report just weeks prior to the Iraq invasion they were still not cooperating, as well as not providing the information necessary. http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/baghdad_press_briefings/march/UNMOVIC%20IAEA%20Press%20Statement%2015%20Mar%2003.pdf If you look at all the weapons, chemical or otherwise that were being destroyed over the years that UNSCOM and UNMOVIC supervised it is alarming.

have you read the entire report? Saddam did NOT tell the truth. Here are some quotes from the UN timeline from the Link you supplied, (which I have read). "9 Sep 1998 Security Council resolution 1194 (1998) unanimously condemns Iraq’s decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM, terming Iraq’s actions a totally unacceptable contravention of Iraq’s obligations; demands Iraq rescind its decision and decides not to conduct the 60-day sanctions reviews until Iraq does so and the Commission reports to the Council that it is satisfied that it has been able to exercise its full range of activities, including inspections." "12 Nov 1997 Security Council resolution 1137 (1997), condemns the continued violation by Iraq of its obligations, including its unacceptable decision to seek to impose conditions on cooperation with UNSCOM. It also imposes a travel restriction on Iraqi officials who are responsible for or participated in the instances of non-compliance." "Sep/Oct 1997 UNSCOM inspection teams are prevented from inspecting three sites designated for inspection, on the basis that the sites are "presidential sites", which Iraq claims are out of bounds to UNSCOM's inspectors." "Oct 1997 UNSCOM completes the destruction of additional, large quantities of chemical weapons related equipment and precursors chemicals. Iraq had previously denied that part of the equipment had been used for CW production. Only in May 1997, on the basis of UNSCOM's investigations, did Iraq admit that some of the equipment had indeed been used in the production of VX."

Gee see what happens when democrats get blowjobs. nice response. If you actually took some time to research a little more history about it you would have realized that I was NOT implicating that it started with Clinton.

You left some important information from that article out of your response... " Article IV 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty. 2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world." to my knowledge, there is no co-operate happening, I.E. no other treaty members are involved with the program which is the reason that I stated what I did. Of course, I may be wrong as the verbiage they chose to write the 4th article in isn't exactly clear either. the bottom line is that without any other party being allowed to co-operate with them it is hearsay, they could be only running their enrichment program for peaceful reason, or they may also have other ideas. That was the whole reason for UN inspectors in Iraq in the first place, having a third party present to ensure the security of other members of the treaty as well as the other states.

The reasons behind the current war in Iraq as well as the pressure that is being put on Iran are due to things set in motion well before Bush took office. Iran is breaking the treaty they signed for Nuclear Non proliferation. There uranium enrichment program they are currently running is a direct dis-regard of the NNPT that they have signed and are a member of. As I said in another thread, look up UNSCOM and research that to better understand the actual roots to the cause of the Iraq war.

May I ask, what rogue nation are you referring to? Do you really need i spelled out to you? AMERICA. The land of the (once free) and the home of the brave No, I don't need it spelled out for me. The implication that the United States of America is a rogue nation and that it is the most likely to launch a nuclear assault resulting in nuclear proliferation is what I want spelled out (along with the reason the poster would imply such things). Once free? Do you no longer do something you used to do because you are no longer free to? What is that something? Proliferation simply means that a country is increasing their current number of weapons or creating weapons they never had. By signing the treaty, nations that currently have weapons are stating that they will not build more, and nations that don't have any are agreeing to not build any. This is why the US and other countries are up in arms about the Iranian enrichment program that is going on right now. While Iran states that program is only for peaceful purposes, do you really believe that is the case in today's state of th world? One of the goals of the treaty is to "to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy", the problem with this is that there is no co-operation going on between Iran and other UN members. Proliferation is already taking place by N. Korea, I believe they pulled out of the treaty to enable them to build / test weapons. If they had tested a nuclear weapon while they were a member of the treaty would most likely resulted in a much different manner. Not that I agree with the thought that the US is a "rogue nation" but I'm sure if you asked someone from Iran they would believe that we are, again it all depends on who's side of the fence your on and who's propaganda you side with.

it doesn't need to be a "rogue nation" as the treaty doesn't have any formal verbiage about using the existing weapons that are already in existance, (at least the way I understand the treaty)...

you mean that mankind was willing. N. Korea pulled out of the treaty effective in 2003, Pakistan, India, and Israel have never signed the treaty. Oh and I'm only bringing it up to increase the FUD in this thread about TEOTWAWKI and it's impending doom in our lifetime.

that is not necessarily true... "The 5 NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. The United States, for instance, has indicated that it may use nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states"[citation needed]. The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states"[2]. In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers.[3][4]"

As far as I can tell, not many people are outraged by inspectors having been in Iraq prior to the invasion. That's not the part that's a problem. As was already mentioned that was only a part of the problem, and if you look a little more deeply into what UNSCOM was reporting at that time there are lots of other things beside being denied to search or delaying searches that went on. Documentation about chemical weapons, containers found that were used for testing beds for such weapons as VX gas. But that is all besides the point I was attempting to make. This war was set into motion well before Bush took office, as a matter of fact it was before either Bush took office. whether the invasion of Iraq is right or wrong, only history will be a good judge of that, and it also depends on who's history books you are reading. The saddest thing about all of this is we (the USA) are so split right now (politically), the divide is just growing deeper every year. The days of the moderate (centrists) are going by the way side which is a bad thing IMHO.

does anyone actually look up past factual information anymore or just look on the Internet to make their informed decision? look up UNSCOM around 97 and see what you find, the Iraq weapons sanctions didn't even start with Dubya... I happen to actually know one of the UN weapons inspectors that was in Iraq in 97.