busaunit

That's not my point. It's not the lack of a convenient link I'm complaining about. It's the lack of any information for me to make the decision about whether or not I want to bother to go to the referenced link. I think it should be a common etiquette and protocol to provide a synopsis with any web link. If someone wants a bunch of people to go to the trouble to read something, they should go to the trouble to provide a clue as to what the subject is about. Sorry for the thread drift. Carry on, talking about... um, er, whatever... Author and activist Noam Chomsky joined Amsterdam Forum this week and took questions from listeners from around the world on Iraq and the War on Terror. Noam Chomsky is professor emeritus of linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He is world renowned as a linguist and political activist. His latest book is 'Imperial Ambitions: Conversations with Noam Chomsky on the post 9/11 World.' just talks about how commen sense is not commen. when all the facts are put forward about everything the bush government does. The only thing bush lovers can come up with in deffence of this govenment policys are Tantrums , love that word. bush lovers must hate this guy , he makes sense.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11330.htm

no just the idiots that voted for him are.

http://www.chilli50s.com/prod580.htm just saw these boots, looks like they might be good to jump in. later

I dunno, but I know that something is wrong with abbreviating document as doco. Or maybe documentary? Or something? That is just lazy. Somewhat interesting video though. biased of course, but truth has many sides. I fi combine them all, I may find out the whole truth someday...maybe. i am australian born lazy

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8055.htm i wonder whats wrong with this doco.? 1.nothing

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video/fallujah_ING.wmv this is another documentary that was shown on italian tv.

20.10.2005 Mitchell, Austin 10 signatures Caton, Martin Corbyn, Jeremy Hemming, John Holmes, Paul Jones, Lynne Llwyd, Elfyn McCafferty, Chris McDonnell, John Mulholland, Greg That this House notes that the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention binds signatories not to transfer to any nation any agents, toxins, weapons and equipment of biological and toxin warfare and provides that any nation finding another signatory in breach of this undertaking may lodge a complaint to the UN Security Council; notes that the Riegle Report to the US Senate has published evidence that the US sold bacillus anthracis, clostridium botulinum, histoplasma capsulatum, brucella, melitensis and clostridium perfringens to agencies of the Iraqi government pursuant to export licences issued by the US Department of Commerce, at a time when the US was fully aware of the Iraqi biological warfare programme and that these exports have been fully documented noting, in particular, that the US sales included Vollum strain anthrax, found by the Iraq Survey Group to be the strain of anthrax used in the Iraqi biological weapons programme, and which, as reported in The Times of 9th August, originated from a dead cow in Oxfordshire; calls on the Government to report these sales to the Security Council in the light of its commitment in the April 2002 Green Paper, Strengthening the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, that those at every level responsible for any breach of international law relating to the use of such weapons will be held personally accountable; and urges the Prime Minister either to lodge the necessary complaint with the Security Council or change the UK's stated policy after an appropriate public announcement and discussion. http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29141&SESSION=875

flow binding could be another way to go

funny to see that a Professor of Law has no idear what he talking about and yet blind faith is put into a failed oil man sorry not failed any more :p http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4349042.stm maybe robert mugabe has a better idear on what is going on

Iraq and the Laws of War By Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law, University of Illinois 14 Oct 2005 "ICH" -- -- On 19 March 2003 President Bush Jr. commenced his criminal war against Iraq by ordering a so-called decapitation strike against the President of Iraq in violation of a 48-hour ultimatum he had given publicly to the Iraqi President and his sons to leave the country. This duplicitous behavior violated the customary international laws of war set forth in the 1907 Hague Convention on the Opening of Hostilities to which the United States is still a contracting party, as evidenced by paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). Furthermore, President Bush Jr.'s attempt to assassinate the President of Iraq was an international crime in its own right. Of course the Bush Jr. administration's war of aggression against Iraq constituted a Crime against Peace as defined by the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950) as well as by paragraph 498 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). Next came the Pentagon's military strategy of inflicting "shock and awe" upon the city of Baghdad. To the contrary, article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defined the term "War crimes" to include: "... wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity..." The Bush Jr. administration's infliction of "shock and awe" upon Baghdad and its inhabitants constituted the wanton destruction of that city, and it was certainly not justified by "military necessity," which is always defined by and includes the laws of war. Such terror bombings of cities have been criminal behavior under international law since before the Second World War: Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Dresden, London, Guernica. On 1 May 2003 President Bush Jr. theatrically landed on a U.S. aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego to declare: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." He spoke before a large banner proclaiming: "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." As of that date, the United States government became the belligerent occupant of Iraq under international law and practice. This legal status was formally recognized by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003. For the purpose of this analysis here, the relevant portions of that Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003) are as follows: Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent Representatives of the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of the Security Council (S/2003/538) and recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of these states as occupying powers under unified command (the "Authority"), .... 5. Calls upon all concerned to comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907;... In that aforementioned 8 May 2003 letter from the United States and the United Kingdom to the President of the Security Council, both countries pledged to the Security Council that: "The States participating in the Coalition will strictly abide by their obligations under international law, including those relating to the essential humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq." No point would be served here by attempting to document the gross and repeated violations of that solemn and legally binding pledge by the United States and the United Kingdom from that date until today since it would require a separate book to catalog all of the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and grave human rights violations inflicted by the United States and the United Kingdom in Iraq and against its people. Suffice it to say here that no earlier than President Bush's 1 May 2003 Declaration of the end of hostilities in Iraq, and certainly no later than U.N. Security Resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003, both the United States and the United Kingdom have been the belligerent occupants of Iraq subject to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) or respectively its British equivalent, the humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol One of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of war. I do not take the position that the United States is the belligerent occupant of the entire state of Afghanistan. But certainly the laws of war and international humanitarian law apply to the United States in its conduct of hostilities in Afghanistan as well as to its presence there. It is not generally believed that the United States is the belligerent occupant of Guantanamo, Cuba. But those detainees held there by United States armed forces who were apprehended in or near the theaters of hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq are protected by either the Third Geneva Convention protecting prisoners of war or the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians. In any event every detainee held by the United States government in Guantanamo is protected by the International Covenant on a Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a contracting party. A similar analysis likewise applies /pari passu/ to those numerous but unknown torture and detention facilities operated around the world by the Central Intelligence Agency. America's own "Gulag Archipelago." No wonder the Bush Jr. administration has done everything humanly possible to sabotage the International Criminal Court! The United States government's installation of the so-called Interim Government of Iraq during the summer of 2004 did not materially alter this legal situation. Under the laws of war, this so-called Interim Government of Iraq is nothing more than a "puppet government." As the belligerent occupant of Iraq the United States government is free to establish a puppet government if it so desires. But under the laws of war, the United States government remains fully accountable for the behavior of its puppet government. These conclusions are made quite clear by paragraph 366 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956): 366. Local Governments Under Duress and Puppet Governments The restrictions placed upon the authority of a belligerent government cannot be avoided by a system of using a puppet government, central or local, to carry out acts which would be unlawful if performed directly by the occupant. Acts induced or compelled by the occupant are nonetheless its acts. As the belligerent occupant of Iraq, the United States government is obligated to ensure that its puppet Interim Government of Iraq obeys the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), the humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol One of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of war. Any violation of the laws of war, international humanitarian law, and human rights committed by its puppet Interim Government of Iraq are legally imputable to the United States government. As the belligerent occupant of Iraq, both the United States government itself as well as its concerned civilian officials and military officers are fully and personally responsible under international criminal law for all violations of the laws of war, international humanitarian law, and human rights committed by its puppet Interim Government of Iraq such as, for example, reported death squads operating under its auspices. Furthermore, it was a total myth, fraud, lie, and outright propaganda for the Bush Jr. administration to maintain that it was somehow magically transferring "sovereignty" to its puppet Interim Government of Iraq during the summer of 2004. Under the laws of war, sovereignty is never transferred from the defeated sovereign such as Iraq to a belligerent occupant such as the United States. This is made quite clear by paragraph 353 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956): "Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based upon the possession of enemy territory, necessarily implies that the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the occupying power. Occupation is essentially provisional." If there were any doubt about this matter, paragraph 358 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) makes this fact crystal clear: 358. Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and the occupying force.... Therefore, the United States government never had any "sovereignty" in the first place to transfer to its puppet Interim Government of Iraq. In Iraq the sovereignty still resides in the hands of the people of Iraq and in the state known as the Republic of Iraq, where it has always been. The legal regime described above will continue so long as the United States remains the belligerent occupant of Iraq. Only when that U.S. belligerent occupation of Iraq is factually terminated can the people of Iraq have the opportunity to exercise their international legal right of sovereignty by means of free, fair, democratic, and uncoerced elections. So as of this writing, the United States and the United Kingdom remain the belligerent occupants of Iraq despite their bogus "transfer" of their non-existent "sovereignty" to their puppet Interim Government of Iraq. Even U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546 of 8 June 2004 "Welcoming" the installation of the puppet Interim Government of Iraq recognized this undeniable fact of international law. Preambular language in this Resolution referred to "the letter of 5 June 2004 from the United States Secretary of State to the President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution." In other words, that annexed letter is a legally binding part of Resolution 1546 (2004). Therein U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell pledged to the U.N. Security Council with respect to the so-called Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq: "In addition, the forces that make up the MNF are and will remain committed at all times to act consistently with their obligations under the law of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions." Pursuant thereto, the United States and the United Kingdom still remain the belligerent occupants of Iraq subject to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Hague Regulations of 1907, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) or respectively its British equivalent, the humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of war. This brings the analysis to the so-called Constitution of Iraq that was allegedly drafted by the puppet Interim Government of Iraq under the impetus of the United States government. Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare flatly prohibits the change in a basic law such as a state's Constitution during the course of a belligerent occupation: "The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." This exact same prohibition has been expressly incorporated in haec verba into paragraph 363 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). To the contrary, the United States has demonstrated gross disrespect toward every law in Iraq that has stood in the way of its imperial designs and petroleum ambitions, including and especially the pre-invasion 1990 Interim Constitution for the Republic of Iraq. As for any subsequent Security Council Resolutions, the United Nations Security Council has no power or authority to alter one iota of the laws of war since they are peremptory norms of international law. For the Security Council even to purport to authorize U.S. violations of the laws of war in Iraq would render its so-voting Member States aiders and abettors to U.S. war crimes and thus guilty of committing war crimes in their own right. Any Security Council attempt to condone, authorize or approve violations of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the 1907 Hague Regulations, the humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of war by the United States and the United Kingdom in Iraq would be ultra vires, a legal nullity, and void ab initio. In fact, the United Nations Organization itself has become complicit in U.S. and U.K. international crimes in Iraq in violation of the customary international laws of war set forth in paragraph 500 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956): "... complicity in the commission of, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are punishable." The United Nations Organization is walking down the path of the League of Nations toward Trotsky's "ashcan" of history. And George Bush Jr. and Tony Blair are heading towards their own Judgment at Nuremberg whose sixtieth anniversary the rest of the world gratefully but wistfully commemorates this year. Never again! Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, by Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE@LAW.UIUC.EDU

there is a real time file around its 32 mb, i can not find it again. i have it but i dont no where i can post it., any idears?

http://www.mininova.org/tor/68961 worth a download if you have not seen this doco

ok saddam did kill a lot of people, but i think that number has been over taken by BUSH.if its all about numbers. Also saddam bought the weapons he used to kill all those people from the same people that that are now have stoped him. So its ok to sell a country weapons as long as they do use them. once again when was the last time you bought something and didnt use it. and the list of weapons that was sold too them does include wma maybe this is y bush knows he has them,because no one else could find them

President Bush was visiting a primary school and he dropped in on one of the classes. They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked the President if he would like to lead the discussion on the word "tragedy". So the illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a tragedy". One little boy stood up and offered: "If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him that would be a tragedy." "No," said Bush, "that would be an accident." A little girl raised her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy." "I'm afraid not," explained the president. "That's what we would call a great loss." The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Bush searched the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?" Finally at the back of the room a small boy raised his hand. In a quiet voice he said: "If Air Force One carrying you and Mrs. Bush was struck by a “friendly fire" missile and blown to smithereens that would be a tragedy." "Fantastic!" exclaimed Bush. "That's right. And can you tell me why that would be a tragedy?" "Well," says the boy, "It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn’t be a great loss and it probably wouldn't be an accident either."

well lets see what happeneds when contract time comes around see if its anything like iraq contracts. or lets put this another way oil contracters earn around 10000 to any where up to 40000 a month and the armed forces guys earn around 4000 a month sounds like cheap labor to me what job do you think deserves more money.

5.2 billion divided by 11.8 million people help help them do what I think that articale is nothing more then a puff peace.

so nice of those damn evil americas spend 192 billion to blown the shit out of a place then spend 5.2 billion to rebuild it. i would be happy if i was an iraq. would you

they are civilians they dont count. lol no, sorry sometimes smart bombs miss there targets this is war civilians die, nothing we can do about that. now i sound like one of them

another fine example of how you know nothing about which you speak. ? yea and what of what i said would be untrue, another fine example of how you know nothing about what you speak

Which best serves to restore the people of New Orleans to their homes: 1) One person who gets a job for $30 per hour, or; 2) Two people who get jobs for $15 per hour each? Furthermore, the more people you can bring in to get a job done, the quicker the city can be restored. So you can have: 1) Some high-paid construction workers taking twice as long to do the job, or; 2) Twice as many construction workers being paid half as much getting the job done in half the time. Take your pick. I suppose if Bush didn't take this action, then the Bush-haters would be screaming about how he is deliberatly slowing down the restoration of New Orleans, with implications of racism... Not this old argument again. No business I have ever worked with (I currently have a book of clients that covers 245 businesses accross the entire spectrum of occupations) has ever hired more workers than they need to do the work, regardless of the salary. Employers hire the number of workers they need, to accomplish the job at hand. No business will hire two workers when one can so the work (with the exception of the Govm't, I'll grant you that one) $30 and hour two people getting $15 dollars an hour? think its more like bushes mate get more like $100 an hour and 2 people {plebs} get $3.50 an hour, thats the problem Well bush made the payments to dead troops familys less after the war started,Y would he stop there?

Bush plea for cash to rebuild Iraq raises $600 Mark Townsend in Houston Sunday September 25, 2005 The Observer An extraordinary appeal to Americans from the Bush administration for money to help pay for the reconstruction of Iraq has raised only $600 (£337), The Observer has learnt. Yet since the appeal was launched earlier this month, donations to rebuild New Orleans have attracted hundreds of millions of dollars. The public's reluctance to contribute much more than the cost of two iPods to the administration's attempt to offer citizens 'a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq' has been seized on by critics as evidence of growing ambivalence over that country. This coincides with concern over the increasing cost of the war. More than $30 billion has been appropriated for the reconstruction. Initially, America's overseas aid agency, USaid, expected it to cost taxpayers no more than $1.7bn, but it is now asking the public if they want to contribute even more. It is understood to be the first time that a US government has made an appeal to taxpayers for foreign aid money. Contributors have no way of knowing who will receive their donations or even where they may go, after officials said details had be kept secret for security reasons. USaid's Heather Layman denied it was disappointed with the meagre sum raised after a fortnight. 'Every little helps,' she said. In the past 12 months, Americans raised some $250bn for charity, including other foreign causes such as the Asian tsunami victims. Layman said: 'There is no financial goal. People are looking for a way to help rebuild Iraq and this is a way to facilitate that.' The fundraising comes amid concern that some US projects in Iraq will be scrapped or only partly completed because of rising costs. Some officials fear that money may run out before key projects are completed. Last week, the number of US troops killed in Iraq rose above 1,900.

Murdered Mother Not News? U.S. soldier shoots 56-year-old Iraqi woman to death in her home by Jane Saunders BAGHDAD, IRAQ -- (OfficialWire) -- 09/17/05 -- Not a single member of the so-called mainstream media have bothered to report the murder of an Iraqi woman in her home. U.S. forces shot and killed a 56-year-old Iraqi woman after they invaded her home during a random search Thursday morning. A reporter for Mafkarat al-Islam in Hit, Iraq published the story of the children of al-Hajjah Umm Khattab who said that U.S. forces on Thursday morning raided their neighborhood. "They stormed our family home," one of Umm Khattab’s sons said, "when the three of us were off at work." “Our mother asked the officer to wait a second before entering so that the women in the house could put on their veils and scarves,” he said. “But the [officer] refused, and he and his troops just burst into the house by force, pushing our mother, al-Hajjah Umm Khattab, aside. She responded by spitting in the [officer’s] face and insulting him and he shot her four times in the chest, killing her instantly.” According to a medical sources at the ar-Ramadi Hospital four bullets were found in the body of Umm Khattab. Local witnesses said they heard gunshots from inside Umm Khattab's house, but said they couldn’t get close enough to see what had happened until the U.S. soldiers had left. They said, though, that the U.S. soldiers left the house quickly after the shooting. The absence of reporting, by U.S. and UK news outlets, does not make the truth go away. The killing of Iraqis continues unabated and unreported. Though if one American dies, CNN runs an hour-long special. Iraq is America's shame and the world knows.

Declaration of Revocation by John Cleese To the citizens of the United States of America, in the light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new Prime Minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a Minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect: 1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium." Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour'; skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters. You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix "ize" will be replaced by the suffix "ise." You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to re-spell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary." Using the same thirty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "uhh", "like", and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed." 2. There is no such thing as "US English." We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize." 3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents ---Scottish dramas such as "Taggart" will no longer be broadcast with subtitles. While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon." If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire. 4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters. British sit-coms such as "Men Behaving Badly" or "Red Dwarf" will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness. 5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through. 6. You should stop playing American "football." There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US Rugby sevens side by 2007.You should stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called "rounders," which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs. 7. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public. 8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 2nd will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day." 9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap, and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour. 10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call 'French fries' are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian though 97.85% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps." Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat. Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers. 11. As a sign of penance 5 grams of sea salt per cup will be added to all tea made within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this quantity to be doubled for tea made within the city of Boston itself. 12. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling "beer" is not actually beer at all, it is lager . From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as "beer," and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as "Lager." The substances formerly known as "American Beer" will henceforth be referred to as "Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine," with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as "Weak Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine." This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in the Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion. 13. From November 10th the UK will harmonise petrol (or "gasoline," as you will be permitted to keep calling it until April 1st 2006) prices with the former USA. The UK will harmonise its prices to those of the former USA and the Former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol prices (roughly $6/US gallon -- get used to it). 14. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun. 15. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy. 16. Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776). Thank you for your co-operation.

The United States transfers more weapons and military services than any other country in the world http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html thank you again for making the world a safer place