Slashdot Mirror

However, blocking political sites on a corporate network is perfectly reasonable.

When a corporation decides to block certain content, that is _not_ censorship. That is a corporate policy that likely includes blocking other political sites.

Try going to http://www.antiwar.com/ when you're next on a large corporation's network and see what the response is. Very likely the content will be blocked because it's catagorized as a political website. Then try xkcd.org and it'll likely be blocked because it's a humour site. The arguement for both those sites is that there is no company business that will be served by visiting them.

Now, if the government was blocking the site to private individuals, we could have a censorship discussion.

sooo 95,000-105,000 civilians dead, and 1034 US soldiers dead? It's probabaly not a bad thing to put thoes soldiers in danger, it'd even out the ratios a bit.

After Somalia's former government collapsed, it didn't take long for warlords to consolidate power

sigh. You do realize that the worlds biggest warlord was behind the Somali gov "collapse" and for several years now has been illegally invading the country on the sly.

At first glance you may think that the US invasion will be a good thing for Somalia... but then the horrific details of the methods used might give pause to that romanticized "It'll be good for 'em" notion of war and invasion.

. Of course, It's all about oil, again. Won't someone invent a replacement already.

talk about yer hardware backdoors ... this one is a pseudo random number generator that can be rigged to generate predictable keys. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ketcham.php

Huzzah!

Seriously though, it seems that the management's earlier lesson didn't sink in too well:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/09/17/new-york-times-figures-out-the-web-its-free/

I get the "good journalism costs money" argument. However, what this shows is that while it is possible for businesses to make money off internet advertising, the Times couldn't figure out how to do it.

While I doubt we'll ever know, my guess is that their revenue from subscription will be less than that from advertising. If their top tier talent hang around, they will bleed money until they are bought by someone with deeper pockets (who will reverse this dumb-ass decision and start some serious cost cutting). If they walk, then the value of the business will shrink making them an unlikely target. My guess is the latter. The talent will walk. An "indie" Krugman/Friedman/Dowd blog could probably earn enough advertising revenue to support them. The rest will disappear.

If that happens then there will be a REAL shakeup in the old-school media franchises.

if Ron Paul were president, I guarantee you that he'd keep the new surveillance powers, too.

If Ron Paul were President, he might change his mind.

But as a Congressman, he opposes it. He didn't vote on the FISA bill, reportedly because he was unavailable to do so after a last-minute change to the calendar.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/06/24/ron-paul-on-the-wiretap-bill/

Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.

The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens' communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.

In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration's illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.

I'm not particularly enthusiastic about Ron Paul, but claiming he would support warrantless wiretapping is a misrepresentation of his public statements on the subject.

Nuclear energy is a property of physics and as such it's use for good or bad is determined by people. Last time I checked our Constitution it said all people are created equal (no national qualifier) so why should our political leaders decide who should have the ability to harness nuclear energy and who should not? I of course am not a proponent of nuclear weapons proliferation but of course even I can see America's hypocrisy with nuclear and non-nuclear states. If you are a nuclear state like Israel and Pakistan, you get much more political leverage than an Iraq or Afghanistan who were invaded and will be occupied for generations to come. Israel can commit human rights atrocities in Gaza and no one says anything. Pakistan is ruled by an Islamic dictator and is full of Al Queda (their ISI is even accused of helping to fund the 9-11 attacks). What happens to them? They get American foreign aid (i.e. cash) and military weapons. And if we were really concerned about nuclear proliferation, why on earth would we make a nuclear agreement with Turkey Oh, yeah, that is right, Turkey bribed and extorted our government to assist them. If Iran wants to develop a peaceful nuclear technology in accordance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation agreement they previously signed and we agreed to then they should be allowed to. We have all heard the WMD rabble rousing before based on "undisclosed government sources". I will hold my personal judgment on Iran's nuclear ambitions until the nuclear inspectors release their findings.

This is the first I've heard this claim, so I googled and found this, which on the surface backs you up: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

Of course, the literal transation (if accurate), doesn't really convience me Iran wouldn't invade Israel.

"Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from). "

So what exactly is he proposing if not to remove the Jewish government currently there, presumably forcing the Jews to leave? He claims that the Jewish people there have "no root" in the area, which is absurd on the face of it. Jews, Christians, and Muslims are ALL rooted there.

Please, spar me the "poor Palistians" crap; they're in the position they are in because they couldn't share.

Personally, I'm sick of the whole nonsense with fighting about who's religion the place is more important to; I'd rather nuke the entire "holy land" so that it is uninhabitable by all. Stupid retards fighting over who's mythology is "right."

Are you talking about our (US) casualties or the deaths of A-Stan/Iraqi people? You can get those pretty much any time you want. Hers a few I found with a quick Google searhc: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

How sad is it when the Army is contracting out one of its most essential functions?

Sad? It's great! It means the Army is doing a fine job of fulfilling its most essential function -- enriching the stockholder class.

Oh, come on, surely you don't believe that old-fashioned sentimental nonsense about the armed forces existing to protect the nation and its people? The U.S. military has been protecting commercial interests since the late 1800s. The military-industrial complex that grew up in the early 20th century just made war more of a racket. Turning military functions directly over to the industrial side of the complex merely improves the process of removing money from working citizens and putting it in the pockets of the owning classes. It's a great business model!

(Sure, soldiers get electrocuted by shoddy KBR workmanship, but c'mon, we can't be worried about the lives of grunts like that any more than we worry about Iraqis or Afghanis who get blown up. Profits before people, after all, so long as they're not our people.)

http://antiwar.com/casualties/

And 100,000 dead in Iraq stopping the terrorists.

The freedom to not have the western world infringe upon their way of life. The freedom to not be under attack from Americans FIRST. Pushing US policies and ideals which are not appreciated by foreign sovereignties.

http://antiwar.com/casualties/

We're crying over the deaths in the 10's and 100's thousand. While we inflict over a million. In a war we started.

And Afghan. In our selfish fight against "the great evil communism", who did we sacrifice in the millions in that fight turning their civilian land into a warzone? How many Americans died fighting Communism in the middle east then? And ironically, teach and arm the ones we knew didn't like us, and would later come attack us back.

We always brought the fighting to another land. In another country, so our own would not be damaged. Well guess what, THEY brought it back to the US. After all the millions of innocent civilians dying because of us, FINALLY American civilians are dying too. Maybe we'll learn its not so great a feeling to bring death and destruction to others.

Canada is a responsible member of the international community that hasn't made threats to wipe neighbors off the map, allowed criminals within it's own population to overrun foreign embassies and supplied terrorist groups with financial support/weapons.

Just because it can't be emphasized enough:
1) Ahmadinejad is a provocateur and a colossal anti-Semitic asshole.

2) Ahmadinejad never ever, not even once, called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

See this Guardian piece, this one where a native Persian speaker translates the phrase word-for-word, or the Wikipedia summary. The Persian phrase translates to "vanish from the page of time", and the jist of it is the assertion that Israel is on the "wrong side of history" and will slide out of history much as the Soviet Union did.

3) The phrase was not Ahmadinejad's, but Ayatollah Khomeini's.

Yes, you are free to argue that Khomeini shouldn't have said it, that Khomeini was a dangerous fanatic, or that Ahmadinejad shouldn't have quoted him on this subject. But repeating a phrase used by a respected authority in your culture is not the same thing as coining the phrase. I'm not saying it means nothing, but the fact that it is a quote must be taken into account when assessing the speaker's intent.

This issue, of a phrase spoken by an foreign leader which sounds sinister in translation, is very similar to the issue of Khrushchev's "We will bury you" remark, also not intended to be as threatening as it was taken.

Thanks for the substantial response. I was surprised by your terseness before, as I had befriended you, and I tend only to befriend people who I deem insightful or clear thinkers. I am now reassured that I was justified in doing so.

There's nothing in my opinion, that government can do to to stop things from getting worse. The question is how much worse and for how long? That's the only thing we can affect.

On this point we are in full agreement, and you are also correct that we disagree on what actions to take and, possibly, which situation is worse: a short, sharp, painful depression or a milder prolonged one. Government stimulus will result in the latter, but the root problems (see below) are still not dealt with. They aren't necessarily dealt with if no stimulus is given either, but IMO we would be in a more stable position once we recover.

I'd expected the economic policies of the prior administration to end in disaster, and I was aware that there was a housing bubble, although I'd be lying if I said I'd been perspicacious enough to connect the two.

I will refrain (this time!) from assuming I know which policies you're referencing, and simply say again that I believe this crisis has been building for a long time, and the housing bubble happens to be the one that tipped the scales. In my view, it is the loose monetary policies of the Federal Reserve that are the root cause of our financial bubbles, and that the business cycle accepted as normal is one byproduct of it. This is likely a big reason we disagree on what actions should be taken. (Another less-than-useful medical metaphor, just for kicks: the bubbles are infections and colds, while fiat money is the HIV that exacerbates their effects.)

To close on a bizarre note, it appears that Vladimir Putin agrees with me...

Debunked

Communism killed more than 100 million people in the last century

Capitalism has killed more than a million people in the past 4 years. What's your point, other than to create a straw man?

@jester:

"Was it because CNN doesn't show that kind of thing as policy, or was it just because it was too close to home and they didn't want to upset people further?"

I'd say you pretty much answered your own question. For a more balanced perspective than U.S. corporate MSM I'd recommend:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ (center left by European standards hard left by American standards)

http://antiwar.com/ (Libertarian anti imperialist excellent tracking of conflict around the world)

http://commondreams.org/ (Liberal/left compilation of news from around the world)

http://counterpunch.org/ (Hard left with occasional Libertarianesque essays)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ ("anti state, anti war, pro market" essays)

Yeah this list is slanted to the left if you go to all these sites and balance it with the BBC and our center right to hard right corporate MSM, you can ALMOST figure out what's going on in the world. Good luck having a life though. :(

Labour is the same as the Tories.

Democrats are the same as Republicans.

You people never learn, do you?

You just keep voting them in, year in and year out.

Someone once pointed out that if you put cheese in a maze, mice will navigate that maze until they find the cheese. But if you take the cheese out, eventually the mice will stop trying.

But with humans, once they think the cheese is in there, they'll keep navigating that maze no matter how many times they never find the cheese. Because they "know" the cheese is there.

Same thing with the state - people just keep on believing that if they just had the "right" people in the government, everything will magically work out just fine.

Humans vs robots - as Dr. Tim used to say, anyone who doesn't realize that they're 99.95 percent robotic is too stupid to talk to.

You think Obama is going to make a difference?

Making Excuses for Obama
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13698

The Limits of Change
What to expect from the Obama administration on the foreign policy front
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13709

Forget the Honeymoon
Getting down to bizness with Obama
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13728

Labour is the same as the Tories.

Democrats are the same as Republicans.

You people never learn, do you?

You just keep voting them in, year in and year out.

Someone once pointed out that if you put cheese in a maze, mice will navigate that maze until they find the cheese. But if you take the cheese out, eventually the mice will stop trying.

But with humans, once they think the cheese is in there, they'll keep navigating that maze no matter how many times they never find the cheese. Because they "know" the cheese is there.

Same thing with the state - people just keep on believing that if they just had the "right" people in the government, everything will magically work out just fine.

Humans vs robots - as Dr. Tim used to say, anyone who doesn't realize that they're 99.95 percent robotic is too stupid to talk to.

You think Obama is going to make a difference?

Making Excuses for Obama
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13698

The Limits of Change
What to expect from the Obama administration on the foreign policy front
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13709

Forget the Honeymoon
Getting down to bizness with Obama
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13728

Labour is the same as the Tories.

Democrats are the same as Republicans.

You people never learn, do you?

You just keep voting them in, year in and year out.

Someone once pointed out that if you put cheese in a maze, mice will navigate that maze until they find the cheese. But if you take the cheese out, eventually the mice will stop trying.

But with humans, once they think the cheese is in there, they'll keep navigating that maze no matter how many times they never find the cheese. Because they "know" the cheese is there.

Same thing with the state - people just keep on believing that if they just had the "right" people in the government, everything will magically work out just fine.

Humans vs robots - as Dr. Tim used to say, anyone who doesn't realize that they're 99.95 percent robotic is too stupid to talk to.

You think Obama is going to make a difference?

Making Excuses for Obama
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13698

The Limits of Change
What to expect from the Obama administration on the foreign policy front
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13709

Forget the Honeymoon
Getting down to bizness with Obama
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13728

Not in the weeks immediately following 9/11. On September 13th, the UN Security Council passed yet another resolution against Iraq, even though Iraq hadn't done anything new, but members of the council were drawing conclusions because Saddam publicly praised the terrorists.

I'm just curious, which resolution are we talking about? This site lists all U.N. Security Council resolutions against Iraq prior to 2004. I don't see anything on September 13, except one drafted in 1990 regarding foodstuffs.

Perhaps this link doesn't have everything, but it seems comprehensive.

Many suggested the security council was immediately ready to approve military action against Iraq if the US wanted to pursue it.

Many? MANY?? Who would this 'many' be? Think tanks? Newspaper Op-Eds? National Security experts?

Your article suggests people were against the war in 2003, which is true. What I'm suggesting is that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, several leaders were vocally drawing links to Iraq, even though they had no proof.

Cool, I agree with this. Several "leaders" were drawing links to Iraq and they were wrong because they had zero proof.

The sentiments changed greatly because we pursued diplomacy instead of immediately charging in on trumped up charges when support was higher.

We pursued diplomacy? When? As far as I can recall, the U.S. kicked out the weapons inspectors in 2003 before the bombs dropped, because they weren't finding anything. The fact that they were on the verge of announcing that there were no WMD's in Iraq scared the crap out of the Bush administration, as it destroyed any case they had for war. This is further shown when the Bush administration changed their reasoning for war, going from finding WMD's to "ridding the world of a tyrant."

Also, while the 9/11 Panel, President Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz have publicly denied or questioned that there was any link between Iraq and 9/11, Dick Cheney is still TO THIS DAY spreading this lie in some shape or form.

The Bush Administration tried their hardest to make it seem like they exhausted all of their options, but in reality, they sent in a group of weapons inspectors, Saddam let them in, they couldn't find anything, and so Bush immediately called them ineffective and declared war.

Geogia prepared for the attack just as Russia did. Georgia got thousands of troops moving on South Ossetia, then Saakashvili announced a ceasefire and 3 or four hours later started night bombardment. There was no immediate provocation and the bombardment was not announced. US military advisor came to his Georgian unit morning before the war and saw them ready to go. And it appears that US "civilian" advisers (aka retired generals and other officers) were running the show. Reprisal of Operation Storm in Croatina Krajina from 1995. http://antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=13294.
That too was run by US retired generals as advisors. Now the Croatian generals who were on the ground are in Hague for war crimes. Why not Saakasvili?
Only this time Russians were ready and able to do something.

I have 4147 reasons not to vote republican.
Casualties of War

Thousand didn't even make a budge in the government.

The final total was about 11 MILLION people. And Bush called the protesters a "focus group"

How many more people is it going to take?

I think he was referring to our subsequent invasion of other middle eastern countries on false premises.

I think the key phrase in your post is "though there was some exaggeration" everyone now knows the exaggeration was huge and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. There were many uses of fraudulent intelligence. For example the US government promoted the false claim, through State Department Fact Sheets, that Saddam Hussein had been seeking to procure uranium from Niger. http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=5934

>Bush murdered a decorated war hero on national television

He's murdered several war heroes.

One sobering correction. It was noted above that had we not gone to war in Iraq, we would have saved "thousands" of lives.

The Iraqi death toll due to US invasion stands well over one million.

I'm guessing you meant "thousands of US lives", but please don't forget about those who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That's stupid. They'll arrest you right on the spot.

What you have to do is constantly post hints about being sympathetic to al-queada on various message boards, occasionally visit anti-american websites, like this or do searches like this and soon you'll have your own bodyguards. Oh, and make donations to the NRA. That'll confuse them plenty, and it'll keep them perpetually stuck in front of your house.

But... when Clinton said that Iraq had those weapons, he knew it was true because Bush Sr. and Reagan gave Saddam those weapons to fight Iran, and Chemical Ali had used a couple on some towns. When Bush Jr said it, those weapons had probably already been moved. So, while you're probably very correct about the wag the dog idea, I don't think parroting incorrect slogans is the way I'd describe it. If anything, I was making up my own incorrect slogan. While I do appreciate the fact that you think it's slogan-worthy, I will have to take offense at the parroting portion =)

The point, which I think you may have missed, was in my response to someone talking about Clinton perjurying himself, as if that's some real big deal in the grand scheme of things. Again, my point was that I'd rather have a President who lied under oath about a really stupid matter than to have one lie during a state of the union address (or just get his black general friend to do it for him to the UN) about a very important matter that got over 4000 Americans killed in Iraq, just shy of 500 killed in Afghanistan (which added together is the population of my home town, and my little town has had one twenty-year-old die there), around 30,000 Americans wounded officially (though many sites put it much higher), and moderate estimates putting about 30,000 Iraqis dead as a result of our escapades over there.

Blowjob and lying or Operation Iraqi Freedom... you tell me, then accuse me of parroting again. You can go back in the archives and get all the Clinton stuff you want (and I'd recommend the stuff that Black Hawk Down was based on), but it still won't come close to the fuckup Bush has wrought on the world. Give me a blue dress with a cum stain any day, because I'd rather that then see another teenager die a thousand miles from home.

But... when Clinton said that Iraq had those weapons, he knew it was true because Bush Sr. and Reagan gave Saddam those weapons to fight Iran, and Chemical Ali had used a couple on some towns. When Bush Jr said it, those weapons had probably already been moved. So, while you're probably very correct about the wag the dog idea, I don't think parroting incorrect slogans is the way I'd describe it. If anything, I was making up my own incorrect slogan. While I do appreciate the fact that you think it's slogan-worthy, I will have to take offense at the parroting portion =)

The point, which I think you may have missed, was in my response to someone talking about Clinton perjurying himself, as if that's some real big deal in the grand scheme of things. Again, my point was that I'd rather have a President who lied under oath about a really stupid matter than to have one lie during a state of the union address (or just get his black general friend to do it for him to the UN) about a very important matter that got over 4000 Americans killed in Iraq, just shy of 500 killed in Afghanistan (which added together is the population of my home town, and my little town has had one twenty-year-old die there), around 30,000 Americans wounded officially (though many sites put it much higher), and moderate estimates putting about 30,000 Iraqis dead as a result of our escapades over there.

Blowjob and lying or Operation Iraqi Freedom... you tell me, then accuse me of parroting again. You can go back in the archives and get all the Clinton stuff you want (and I'd recommend the stuff that Black Hawk Down was based on), but it still won't come close to the fuckup Bush has wrought on the world. Give me a blue dress with a cum stain any day, because I'd rather that then see another teenager die a thousand miles from home.

today I had a non-fun experience with my landlord (I rent).

for the last 2 yrs or so, they have been sending out letters saying there is an 'annual apartment inspection' and that I have to let the landlord in.

the thing is, I've read as much as I can about calif civil codes and there is NO provision for 'annual inspections'. hmmmmm.

so today when the maintenance guy came by (he was 'checking' every single apartment for god knows what) I told him NO!. I refuse.

I then asked what they were looking for and he blew me off saying that since I won't let him in, I won't get to know! sheesh!

a few yrs ago there was an 'idea' by asscroft (may extreme shit be upon him) to create something called TIPS:

http://www.havenworks.com/gov/operation-tips/

and today during a web search, I came across this link:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/brimmer1.html

which also pointed to this TIPS thing.

I'm curious, any other /.ers find that the place you are renting from is NOW, suddenly, starting to do 'inspections' ?

clearly this is a sneak-n-peek but just not done directly by cops. they get our own citizens to rat on each other.

the TIPS thing was supposed to be cancelled in 2002 or so. you don't really believe it was cancelled do you? it just went more underground.

I mention this because the current administration is running a-foul of the law of the land and he's trying to write his own 'king' ticket. they know that by getting citizens to spy on each other, that will keep the climate of fear alive.

anyway, hopefully hearing about TIPS and the 'annual apartment inspections' (that are quite illegal by my reading of section 1954 of the calif civil code. any lawyers here want to comment on that?) will get you clued in and aware of what is really going on in our country.

if the apartment manager wants to 'see your place' they should have an URGENT and real reason and not just to 'check for code violations'.

the story they used on me was they wanted to 'check outlets, the carpet, the balcony, general condition and plumbing around the apartment'. sure sounds like a FISHING EXPEDITION to me. what do you think?

I told them no and they wrote 'refused' on my form. how much you want to bet this ends up in some DC filing cabinet next to my name?

wonderful country we now have, here ;(

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12585
Why They Hate China
Well, you have to hate someone...

See MEMRI [memri.org] for translations of this charming material that would have made Hitler's propagandists proud (for its viciousness if not its sophistication).

MEMRI has a pretty good reputation for propaganda themselves...

The Iraqi death toll is 1,189,173. The US death toll is around 4,000 (with another 30,000 wounded). That's 297 to 1. Which speaks highly of "all the UAVs, ECM to jam EIDs, superstrong ballistic armour on people and vehicles, digital data and comms that have all contributed to the > $1T cost." I'm no fan of the war, or the cost of the war in humans and dollars, but I would gladly have the increased debt than have the 30k wounded be 30k dead. Better still if they had all stayed home, or in Afghanistan. (US death toll 400)

by gstoddart:

"Are all criminals tech savvy? Do they have an IT department to take care of such things? How much does organized crime rely on computers and network technology?

Somehow I'm having a hard time imagining a bunch of people running a crime family sitting around deciding if they need stronger encryption, or different protocols, or using hidden volumes. I just can't see someone involved in drug smuggling, or extortion, or human trafficking firing up their laptops to print the cover sheet for their TPS report."

No, that's why they have me.
The new Murder, Inc.
NSFW:

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1149160972/US_Soldiers_Finish_Off_Wounded_Iraqi

"I doubt that a congressional resolution is going to address the main cause of this war and its continuation: the psychological sickness that is eating away at the American character. It is a mix of hubris, bloodlust, and sheer depravity, and it is being acted out against the backdrop of international politics. The post-9/11 world we are living in has become a projection of our own demons, which have now been unleashed on a horrified world."

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10546

Just take a look at the kind of things coming out of their government-controlled media: http://memritv.org/

If you get your view of the Muslim world from MEMRI, you are looking at the situation with blinders on.

Not to mention that they are also total scumbags with a history of bullying their critics.

MCCAIN:

General Miller -- first of all, we know that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are not subject to the Geneva Conventions because they're Al Qaida, at least those that are Al Qaida and, therefore, being terrorists, they are not subject to the Geneva Conventions for the treatment of prisoners of war. And I don't disagree with that assessment and I don't think you do either, do you?

We have over 10x military budget of the next country, China. This cannot end well.

Very recent article:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884/chalmers_johnson_how_to_sink_america

The radio interview is here:

http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/01/24/chalmers-johnson-3/

"I'm still laughing at how the Bush administration is out smarting the democrats in Congress at every turn."

Laugh while you can.

Your sorry assed demagogues have succeeded in squandering international goodwill towards the U.S., sold military technology to China in order to insure low prices at Wal-Mart and guaranteed that not only *you*, but your children (if you stop doing the hand dance long enough to have any), and their children's chidren will be paying the price for their stupidity.

The long and short of it laughing boy, is that *your* party attempted to impeach a sitting president over a stain on a blue dress and failed, but have sufficiently befuddled the nation with misdirection and divisiveness that we are failing to impeach a president and his cronies who have lied to us, lead us into a quagmire, are shredding the constitution at every turn, and who felt the need to put safeguards in place to prevent them from being charged as war criminals like his father was.

So, yeah, good ahead and laugh, I for one will shed a tear.

Iran has vowed to annihilate Israel, which is an (undeclared) nuclear power.

Wrong

supercomputing power of this sort would be vitally important in running nuclear simulations and perfecting a bomb.

Its seems that many people will say anything to keep the idea of Iran as World-Danger #1 alive. Layers of assumptions on top of innuendo on top of what-if scenarios.

What would we do without a boogeyman after all?

Thank you. That "wipe off the map" quote was deliberate translation disinformation, folks.

Except he never actually said that.

Mass Graves aren't being filled

Interesting that so many prominent American military leaders at the time didn't agree with your views on the atomic bombs:
From http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=9443

Many Army leaders had similar views. Author Norman Cousins writes of Gen. Douglas MacArthur:

"[H]e saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."[6]

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, the supreme commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, was also against the bomb. Eisenhower biographer Stephen Ambrose writes:

"There was one additional matter on which Eisenhower gave Truman advice that was ignored. It concerned the use of the atomic bomb. Eisenhower first heard of the bomb during the Potsdam Conference; from that moment on, until his death, it occupied, along with the Russians, a central position in his thinking. ...

"When [Secretary of War] Stimson said the United States proposed to use the bomb against Japan, Eisenhower voiced '... grave misgivings....' Three days later, on July 20, Eisenhower flew to Berlin, where he met with Truman and his principal advisors. Again Eisenhower recommended against using the bomb, and again was ignored."[7]

These are a few of the many quotes in Alperovitz from military leaders who thought the bomb's use on Japan unnecessary and/or immoral.

When are we going to stand up and say - "To hell with stupid incompetent security. I want my freedom and I want it now."

Yes, I did read 1984. It scared the shit out of me. I don't care who's in power, republican or democrat, I like most people are more centrist, left-leaning on some issues, right leaning on others. If the phrase "permanent anything majority" doesn't scare you, than nothing will. And as for evidence of the US turning into a police state, look at the cameras atop traffic signals, look at the never ending wars on drugs, terrorism, the fact that a warrant is no longer required to wiretap any phone as long as it dials an international number (hope you don't have any friends outside our borders), the DOJ and their anonymous National Security Letters (thankfully ruled unconstitutional), the prison camps and the ability of the executive branch to label anyone an enemy combatant and suspend all their constitutional rights. I could go on, but even Ron Paul has said that the US is becoming a police state. Also, it has often been said that these new laws would not have prevented 9/11. Simple effective communication would have. Nice flamebait, troll and strawman all rolled into one though. Here's a few links for you: http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=3274 http://www.alternet.org/story/36553