Slashdot Mirror

Kennedy was involved in helping start one of the major stompings of a smaller nation of the 20th century, known as the Vietnam War...

The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup, 1953

It seems odd that the excuse being used is that these machines will help countries to develop nuclear weapons.

The computing power available to the US when we developed the hydrogen bomb was considerably less than what was available on a desktop even twenty years ago, so to consider fast or advanced processors to be nuclear weapons development technology seems a trifle absurd.

This article may demonstrate that these congressmen's fears may be justified, but it also demonstrates just how absurd the notion of controlling proliferation through limiting technology is. There's no need for a Pentium-IV (or even a computer) to develop nuclear weapons, and attempting to control the spread of computer technology through this kind of lawmaking is misguided and likely doomed to failure.

Atlantic Monthly They regularly link to past stories in order to give better historical reference to current news items. I think the earliest story they have that mentions Saddam Hussein is from the late 1950's.

Harpers Yet another independantly owned journal that's not afraid to piss off thier advertisers.

The New Yorker Not independant, but has a long tradition of actually checking their facts. Great comics (understated, yet twisted, humor).

I also read my hometown newspaper every day, plus the New York Times on Sundays, and I scan BBC News, Google News, and The Guardian world news online daily. Plastic is good for getting an idea of what (somewhat educated) people think of the goings on in the world, and B3TA is a somewhat effective cure fore too much awareness of world events.

I also get The National Security Archive newsletter in my email about once a week or so.

For tech, I mostly read Linux Journal, SysAdmin, and occasionally Doctor Dobbs Journal.

Of course I always read The Debian Weekly News and /..

Here's a link to that photo plus some historical context, government documentation, and a breif history of the US history of support of Saddam Hussein through the 1980s.

Oh, and thanks for giving Sadam all that money in the oil-for-food program. $100 bags of flour sure helped the citizens of Iraq, and the $50 per bag kickback to Sadam never went towards military use.

And who are these two good ol' friends?

The Nazis gave us a warning from history about the potentially lethal power of the spoken word. one of the most technically advanced and civilised nations on Earth was whipped into a frenzy of mass hysteria by the power of words. The holocaust should never have happened, it should never be forgotten, and it must never happen again.

The right to free speech is not absolute, nor should it be. There are more pressing rights such as the right to life. Where one conflicts with the other, it is the right to life that must prevail.

What did the documents reveal??

I think you'd be surprized how much irrelevant 'intelligence' ends up classified. Often, it's stuff which is already public (although not always general) knowledge but which the administration wants to deny.
A lot of ass-covering, basically.

But it gets even stranger. For instance the case of the de-classified CIA documents relating to the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile. (Whups, now there's a piece of flamebait..)

Anyway, a bunch of these documents have been re-classified by the current administration, apparently to hide such disturbing secrets like what Señor Pinochet's favorite drink was. (Scotch)

Socialists?

You are mistaken, aren't you. Or perhaps you like to take every opportunity to run a smear-campaign against socialism at every opportunity because you've been force-fed pro-capitalist shit since the time you were born.

The weapons certainly did come from the US, and the best ones at that. Russia and France sold Iraq conventional weapons: tanks ( as you pointed out ) and rockets. But the US gave Iraq chemical and biological weapons.

Links? Sure.

Arse-hole Rumsfield shaking hands with Iraq over a biological weapons deal.

A long blurb about the history of the Iran / Iraq war.

Robert Byrd questions the US Senate over the US's shipment of "witches' brew of pathogens," including anthrax, botulinum toxin and gangrene.

And don't call me a moron you fucking arrogant moron.

What happend in Abu Ghraib is totally, totally beyond the pale and it simply boggles the mind on so many levels. It makes me feel physically ill. The idea that there's stuff going to come out soon that's much worse is just impossible to deal with.

All the stuff about Rumsfeld's dealings with Saddam aside, this was made possible because he personally and systematically removed every possible safeguard on the system. The ICGC was rejected, the Army's own regulations on the subject were thrown out. The Geneva-freaking-conventions were to be disregarded because this was "a new kind of war" or whatever awful press conference P.R. slogan newspeak bullshit. Well, now we couldn't make ourselves look worse if we hired a PR firm to try and do it for us. The kind of mindless arrogance that does this... makes you feel all tough and swaggery or whatever in the short term but these things will have real, objective consequences and this handed a tremendous propaganda victory to anti-American forces everywhere.

In one of the more unusual corners of the annals of copyright law, I seem to remember there being something about the "Teddy Ruxpin" which might well deter you from hacking it.

In other words: Someone selling or distributing unauthorized recordings designed to be used in the Teddy Ruxpin doll could be (and was) sued for copyright infringement.

Nothing about this lawsuit would "deter me from hacking" a Teddy Ruxpin doll, or anything else for that matter, as I'm not interested in marketing the results.

Fine, have it your way. Text from the BofC website, links from elsewhere, unless too numerous to list, so I default to Michael Moore's page, full of links from government sources and the like.

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator. Declassified CIA report, same uncensored report linked from a slashdot article.

1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed. CIA documents from 1954 pertaining to Guatemala as well as book excerpt and newspaper article.

1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem. President Johnson once called him "the Churchill of Asia" in 1961. Wikipedia and two books

1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia.

September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered. Common knowledge, its in a ton of books (excerpt)and movies

1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed. (Chomsky) and full reports (another), and a piece by William Blum

1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion. --Reagan invited Afghani leaders to the white house, and said they were like the US' "founding fathers."

1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans die. --Orchestrated by Oliver North from the White House

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians. Sworn affadavits by members of National Security council. Photo of Tariq Aziz at White House with Reagan. More evidence.

1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis. --Part of Iran-contra

1989: CI

Fine, have it your way. Text from the BofC website, links from elsewhere, unless too numerous to list, so I default to Michael Moore's page, full of links from government sources and the like.

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator. Declassified CIA report, same uncensored report linked from a slashdot article.

1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed. CIA documents from 1954 pertaining to Guatemala as well as book excerpt and newspaper article.

1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem. President Johnson once called him "the Churchill of Asia" in 1961. Wikipedia and two books

1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia.

September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered. Common knowledge, its in a ton of books (excerpt)and movies

1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed. (Chomsky) and full reports (another), and a piece by William Blum

1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion. --Reagan invited Afghani leaders to the white house, and said they were like the US' "founding fathers."

1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans die. --Orchestrated by Oliver North from the White House

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians. Sworn affadavits by members of National Security council. Photo of Tariq Aziz at White House with Reagan. More evidence.

1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis. --Part of Iran-contra

1989: CI

Fine, have it your way. Text from the BofC website, links from elsewhere, unless too numerous to list, so I default to Michael Moore's page, full of links from government sources and the like.

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator. Declassified CIA report, same uncensored report linked from a slashdot article.

1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed. CIA documents from 1954 pertaining to Guatemala as well as book excerpt and newspaper article.

1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem. President Johnson once called him "the Churchill of Asia" in 1961. Wikipedia and two books

1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia.

September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered. Common knowledge, its in a ton of books (excerpt)and movies

1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed. (Chomsky) and full reports (another), and a piece by William Blum

1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion. --Reagan invited Afghani leaders to the white house, and said they were like the US' "founding fathers."

1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans die. --Orchestrated by Oliver North from the White House

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians. Sworn affadavits by members of National Security council. Photo of Tariq Aziz at White House with Reagan. More evidence.

1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis. --Part of Iran-contra

1989: CI

Fine, have it your way. Text from the BofC website, links from elsewhere, unless too numerous to list, so I default to Michael Moore's page, full of links from government sources and the like.

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator. Declassified CIA report, same uncensored report linked from a slashdot article.

1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed. CIA documents from 1954 pertaining to Guatemala as well as book excerpt and newspaper article.

1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem. President Johnson once called him "the Churchill of Asia" in 1961. Wikipedia and two books

1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia.

September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered. Common knowledge, its in a ton of books (excerpt)and movies

1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed. (Chomsky) and full reports (another), and a piece by William Blum

1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion. --Reagan invited Afghani leaders to the white house, and said they were like the US' "founding fathers."

1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans die. --Orchestrated by Oliver North from the White House

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians. Sworn affadavits by members of National Security council. Photo of Tariq Aziz at White House with Reagan. More evidence.

1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis. --Part of Iran-contra

1989: CI

This does have a semblance of truth about it. The Blue Peacock nuclear landmines are certainly genuine - they were declassified last year.

The business with the chickens is most likely the same as every other crazy idea - mentioned as a one line "why don't we try ..." in some discussion document. It's certainly no stranger than a lot of other cold-war ideas: Operation Mongoose, using psychics or bugging cats.

Yes, about 20 minutes to read newspapers and slashdot online and make a comment. Not exactly in the same realm as tv-watching.

But the problem here becomes one of an addiction to being informed and consuming information about current events and society.

I went through a one and a half year period in the early 90's where I read four newspapers a day (Two local, and two national). Admittedly, I did not read the entire paper, but I did read the national and international news, plus the editorials and letters to the editor, in all four papers, and I read all of the local news in the two papers from my town.

I've gotten that habit under control, and now limit myself to one newspaper a day, plus the NYT on Sunday, 10-12 news stories from Google per day, and probably 15 or so stories on the BBC news site. plus I regularly check the National Security Archive for the latest updates to their collections and analysis.

I easily spend as much time reading this crap as the worst TV addict spends rotting his mind with reruns of Frazer and Friends. Yes, the picture is quite different than the one I see on the glowing blue box when I encounter one, and info is definately not an "escape", but it can become as much of a time-sucker as any other media.

Yes, about 20 minutes to read newspapers and slashdot online and make a comment. Not exactly in the same realm as tv-watching.

But the problem here becomes one of an addiction to being informed and consuming information about current events and society.

I went through a one and a half year period in the early 90's where I read four newspapers a day (Two local, and two national). Admittedly, I did not read the entire paper, but I did read the national and international news, plus the editorials and letters to the editor, in all four papers, and I read all of the local news in the two papers from my town.

I've gotten that habit under control, and now limit myself to one newspaper a day, plus the NYT on Sunday, 10-12 news stories from Google per day, and probably 15 or so stories on the BBC news site. plus I regularly check the National Security Archive for the latest updates to their collections and analysis.

I easily spend as much time reading this crap as the worst TV addict spends rotting his mind with reruns of Frazer and Friends. Yes, the picture is quite different than the one I see on the glowing blue box when I encounter one, and info is definately not an "escape", but it can become as much of a time-sucker as any other media.

The hundreds of thousands under Saddam, or the thousands while we were removing him?

Hundreds of thousands that were killed while Saddam was supported and sanctioned by the U.S., including his WMD programs. I've never understood the moral relativism that makes it okay to:

1) Support and fund a mass murderer by supplying him with WMD technology, 2) Send send high level envoys to shuck and jive while he's building those WMD, 3) Look the other way and whistle while he uses WMD to mass murder his own citizens, and 4) Continue to support him afterward, and then 5) Cite what you supported as being evil and mount a large-scale invasion to oust your former partner in crime?

The only plausible explanation is that today's U.S. government is packed with hypocrites and liars.

That's right, it's US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with a "madman of the highest order".

You might also want to have a look at: this. My favourite part is the bit about "Bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use". One guess what CW stands for.

Reagan and Rumsfeld both knew what Saddam Hussein was up to in 1984, and did nothing. In fact, they offered plenty of financial and intelligence support to him.

That's right, it's US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with a "madman of the highest order".

You might also want to have a look at: this. My favourite part is the bit about "Bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use". One guess what CW stands for.

Reagan and Rumsfeld both knew what Saddam Hussein was up to in 1984, and did nothing. In fact, they offered plenty of financial and intelligence support to him.

Well, you have to remember that was back in the '80s when it was cool for Saddam to gas people just as long as he was killing as many Iranians as possible.

Speaking of photographs linking political figures, I have yet to see the obligatory link to these pictures of Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein

The one i like the best is that one that has Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands! As if anyone in our administration would have ever had anything to do with him! What? What do you mean it's real? Nevermind...move along...nothing to see here!

Have you even looked at the picture? He's positioned inches away from her. To get any closer, she would've had to have been sitting in his lap.

Have you even looked at the picture? If we're going to be picky about things, the caption for the photo clearly states "John Kerry appears in the background of the photo directly above Jane Fonda's head, sitting about three rows behind the actress." Three rows away from someone is not mere inches, nor almost in her lap. I'd guess he's maybe 10 to 15 feet or more away. I've been in crowds like this at various outdoor concerts, and would be hard pressed to identify a person sitting 3 rows from me...

But, if we're going to stoop to this level, we might want to mention Donald Rumsfeld who goes around greeting axis of evil leaders like they were long lost friends.

Nice links.

I was a little unclear, what I meant is that our administration would like to see the hardships faced by the Iranian people increased in hopes that a revolution will result that might lead to a more US friendly government.

Thanks for pointing that out.

What is left out of many histories of Iran is the fact that as much as we pretended to be at odds with the Iranians under Khomeini, we were really playing both sides of the fence, as is documtnted in the records of the Iran-Contra conspiracy, and other records of the Iran Iraq war, by arming the Iraqis directly and arming Iran through covert funding and arms sales using Israel as a front. As much as we claimed to be at odds with Khomeini, a religeous dictator was much more to the liking of the Reagan Administration than the possibility of communism gaining a foothold in Iran. In return for the double dealing, Khomeini executed several thousand "Communists" during the first few months of his regime.

There are some that think that the US was involved in supporting Khomeini even before the Iran Iraq war, but I haven't yet come to any real conclusion about this as yet. It does seem plausible when you look at the CIA's record.

The Republicans have never been about keeping government out of your life. Whether the subject is obscenity, abortion, "family values", or smoking pot, the Republicans have been there to offer legislation to regulate the minutia of your behavior. They do claim to be all about reducing government, and they do talk about reducing taxes, but it has been the Republicans that have obscenely increased government spending since Nixon, and it has been the Republicans who have proposed new powers for federal, state, and local law enforcement that infringe upon our first and fourth amendment rights, and it has been the Republicans who have bypassed US laws (proposed by Republicans) to support foreign terrorists and dictators (Including Osama Bin-Laden, Saddam Hussein, Augusto Pinoche, Francios and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Manuel Noriega, Anastasio Samoza, Alfredo Cristiani, Mobuto Sese Seko, Samuel Doe, P.W. Botha, etc, etc, etc,) and murdered democratically elected leaders of other countries (Patrice Lumumba) incited coups against Democratic governments (Chile in 1973, Congo in 1964, Liberia in 1980, and a failed coup attempt in Venezuela this past April).

Many Americans choose to be ignorant this historical record because of the Republicans talk of lowering taxes, in spite of the obvious connection between increased government spending and a need for increased revenues.

Many Americans are aware of the historical record, are aware of the continuing illegal activities of our intelligence agencies (both abroad and at home), yet they choose to act as if blind to these things, will argue in favor of these actions, and will contrive to make life difficult of anyone who dare speak of them (if you do not produce documentation you are "crazy", if you do produce documentation then you are "dangerous").

TIA and ARDA are little more than our intelligence agencies and the current Republican administration conspiring to behave a bit more like the dictators they have traditionally backed. The intelligence agencies and the industries that are supported by them would like to see a return to the more lucrative days of the Cold War. They feel they are under threat as more and more people are scrutinizing their history using collections of documents released by the Freedom of Information Act, like those at the National Security Archive, EPIC.org, the Federation of American Scientists, the EFF, and probably more that I am unaware of.

Read this stuff, it is an amazing way to gain insight into the hidden workings of our government. Read about "the Church Commission to learn how the CIA breaks the law, hires the mob, and manipulates the media while harassing and murdering US citizens that they beleive hold "un-American beleifs". Read about the Iran-Contra affair to learn how little respect for the law our current Administration's Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Poindexter (among others) really have, and read about the cocaine importing that they participated in to fund their pet terrorists.

The current mood seems to support giving our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence agencies increased freedoms to invade our privacy while reducing oversight of their actions in hopes that this will increase national security and make our lives a little safer. The problem is that when you look at the record of their history, it appears that the opposite is much more likely to result, and that allowing the FBI and CIA increased freedom and power, might just end the

The Republicans have never been about keeping government out of your life. Whether the subject is obscenity, abortion, "family values", or smoking pot, the Republicans have been there to offer legislation to regulate the minutia of your behavior. They do claim to be all about reducing government, and they do talk about reducing taxes, but it has been the Republicans that have obscenely increased government spending since Nixon, and it has been the Republicans who have proposed new powers for federal, state, and local law enforcement that infringe upon our first and fourth amendment rights, and it has been the Republicans who have bypassed US laws (proposed by Republicans) to support foreign terrorists and dictators (Including Osama Bin-Laden, Saddam Hussein, Augusto Pinoche, Francios and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Manuel Noriega, Anastasio Samoza, Alfredo Cristiani, Mobuto Sese Seko, Samuel Doe, P.W. Botha, etc, etc, etc,) and murdered democratically elected leaders of other countries (Patrice Lumumba) incited coups against Democratic governments (Chile in 1973, Congo in 1964, Liberia in 1980, and a failed coup attempt in Venezuela this past April).

Many Americans choose to be ignorant this historical record because of the Republicans talk of lowering taxes, in spite of the obvious connection between increased government spending and a need for increased revenues.

Many Americans are aware of the historical record, are aware of the continuing illegal activities of our intelligence agencies (both abroad and at home), yet they choose to act as if blind to these things, will argue in favor of these actions, and will contrive to make life difficult of anyone who dare speak of them (if you do not produce documentation you are "crazy", if you do produce documentation then you are "dangerous").

TIA and ARDA are little more than our intelligence agencies and the current Republican administration conspiring to behave a bit more like the dictators they have traditionally backed. The intelligence agencies and the industries that are supported by them would like to see a return to the more lucrative days of the Cold War. They feel they are under threat as more and more people are scrutinizing their history using collections of documents released by the Freedom of Information Act, like those at the National Security Archive, EPIC.org, the Federation of American Scientists, the EFF, and probably more that I am unaware of.

Read this stuff, it is an amazing way to gain insight into the hidden workings of our government. Read about "the Church Commission to learn how the CIA breaks the law, hires the mob, and manipulates the media while harassing and murdering US citizens that they beleive hold "un-American beleifs". Read about the Iran-Contra affair to learn how little respect for the law our current Administration's Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Poindexter (among others) really have, and read about the cocaine importing that they participated in to fund their pet terrorists.

The current mood seems to support giving our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence agencies increased freedoms to invade our privacy while reducing oversight of their actions in hopes that this will increase national security and make our lives a little safer. The problem is that when you look at the record of their history, it appears that the opposite is much more likely to result, and that allowing the FBI and CIA increased freedom and power, might just end the

Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)

Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].

The more people I meet from East Europe, the more I am convinced that the two worlds were much more similar than what we westerners were raised to believe.
People from former East Germany don't shun their origins as people from Nazi Germany would have (see 79qm DDR, which I am told is a quite precise account of the facts by East Germans). Some are even fond of the old eastern flag. A Czech girl told me that, visiting San Francisco, she was appalled by seeing American girls executing a Spartakiad. They were cheerleaders.

There were abuses of human rights on both fields, sometimes specular in type if not in magnitude; McCarthy in the US, stalinist purges in the USSR (Ok, McCarthy never got to that magnitude); invasion of Czechoslovakia and Hungary there, coups in Greece and Chile here; Vietnam for the US and Afghanistan for the USSR (Ok, the USSR was fighting the good fight and the US not, but their methods did not differ much, and civilians suffered most in both cases).

On the other hand, things went on pretty normally for average people on both sides. It was dangerous being against communism in the USSR as much as it was being a communist in the US, and the likelihood of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to lose their elections was pretty much the same as the American Communist Party's to win them.

This is not to say "everybody's a human-right criminal, blast human rights, they were all good fellas".
It is to say that, instead of laughing at propaganda crap in other countries, you should think what propaganda they fed you as truth; that is the most dangerous, as nobody is out there telling you how ludicrous lies you are being exposed to. For instance some may be interested in what was going on in 1984.

One thing is watching Goebbels on the Discovery Channel with a Brit telling you what a jerk he was, another one is being a German, who had been on the brink of starvation before nazism, that has no other information channels than the nazi state's, that stands in a cheering crowd, and who, when Joseph asks, "Wolles Sie den totalen Krieg?", cannot help shouting "Ja!".

the company behind Matrix, was founded by a guy who was implicated in a Bahamian drug smuggling ring back in the 80's

But that's OK, the drug smuggling was part of this operation.

That is a blatant distortion of history propagated by Mr. Rumsfeld himself. None of the recently declassified documents regarding the visit reflect this. Considering Mr. Rumsfeld's current lack of credibility, and highly creative use of rhetoric, this comes as no surprise.

Only 9,000? Try an estimated 37,000+ as a direct result of the conflict, and subsequent chaos. All for the false premise of alleviating the threat of Saddam Hussein's non-existant weapons of mass destruction. Where is the justice?

Those points are all very typical far-left thought.

It may be true that most of those who are willing to state these points are branded as being "far-left", but each of his points are based on factual evidence:

1) The US is a terrorist state.
it sponsors terrorism in the rest of the world to support its corporates objectives.

Iran-Contra

Guerilla opponents of American policy are terrorists

El Salvador

Guerilla supporters of American policy are freedom fighters.

Iran-ContraIran Contra

2) America loves freedom & democracy.
Only in America and only to the extent required by the shackles of it's constitution. elsewhere its OK so long as it doesnt get in the way of American policy.

Chile

Dictators can be bought cheaply to hold the peasants in line.

Iraq

I think most /. readers are fully aware of the evidence for point number three.

Those points are all very typical far-left thought.

It may be true that most of those who are willing to state these points are branded as being "far-left", but each of his points are based on factual evidence:

1) The US is a terrorist state.
it sponsors terrorism in the rest of the world to support its corporates objectives.

Iran-Contra

Guerilla opponents of American policy are terrorists

El Salvador

Guerilla supporters of American policy are freedom fighters.

Iran-ContraIran Contra

2) America loves freedom & democracy.
Only in America and only to the extent required by the shackles of it's constitution. elsewhere its OK so long as it doesnt get in the way of American policy.

Chile

Dictators can be bought cheaply to hold the peasants in line.

Iraq

I think most /. readers are fully aware of the evidence for point number three.

Those points are all very typical far-left thought.

It may be true that most of those who are willing to state these points are branded as being "far-left", but each of his points are based on factual evidence:

1) The US is a terrorist state.
it sponsors terrorism in the rest of the world to support its corporates objectives.

Iran-Contra

Guerilla opponents of American policy are terrorists

El Salvador

Guerilla supporters of American policy are freedom fighters.

Iran-ContraIran Contra

2) America loves freedom & democracy.
Only in America and only to the extent required by the shackles of it's constitution. elsewhere its OK so long as it doesnt get in the way of American policy.

Chile

Dictators can be bought cheaply to hold the peasants in line.

Iraq

I think most /. readers are fully aware of the evidence for point number three.

>So yes, in either case, the minimum wage in this state is $6.75, and it's not the highest in the country either.

That's if you include reliance on donations to keep your job (an employer used to paying $2.13 an hour is not suddenly going to drop their pants and pay you thrice that if business levels). I personally don't count those, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

>The minimum wage in China that you're referring to, is only for ONE CITY. A major city. Not even its suburbs

I can find more. It isn't hard. I have personal examples. My business partner once worked in a slave labour clothing factory. He made about 25 cents an hour a decade ago. Ask about. I think you'll find this isn't uncommon. Heck, even biased sources admit a Chinese worker makes $52.50 monthly (using your numbers). The facts I present are the truth, much as some feel hard pressed to admit.

>A typical Chinese workweek exceeds 60 hours and often will exceed 80

Then the typical Chinese company operates outside the law.

The PRC's Labour Law requires that the daily working hours of employees shall not exceed eight hours and the average working hours in a week shall not exceed 44 hours. Employees are also to have at least one rest day per week.

Sorry, you won't be successfull at convincing me the typical Chinese company operates above Chinese law. China is all about enforcement of its laws in any way necessary.

>But that aside, the fact remains that there are no child labor laws

False.

According to Article 15 of the Chinese Labour Law, employers are not allowed to hire underage workers - workers below the age of 16.

I know there are many groups that are spouting these lies. An infamous man once said, if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Sadly, when it comes to China and labour laws, we've made that adage itself true.

>I'm not saying we should stop buying Chinese products totally. But we need to end these unfair (and illegal) trade and labor practices. We can't compete with that. No one can.

Who wants to? Nobody wants to go through the industrial revolution again. Everyone has to once. That's life. Nobody can appreciate the good without the bad.

I also agree, end the illegal labour practices. Encourage China to prosecute companies that refuse to abide by Chinese law. Then again, that should be obvious! :-)

So I suppose the USA probably had plans for invading Iraq way back.. perhaps even in the 80s, about the same time as Donald Rumsfeld was flying out there to visit his good friend Saddam? Cool.

There is a place but it's run by a university (as opposed to the government): National Security Archive ...

Canada is even worse I think... although Canada hasn't done enough evil things for it to hide them...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

And how about these requests...

I think you should leave the cave that you are living in... it might do some good to be sceptical once in a while.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

USA does it too... but is much more secretive and the time period is longer I believe. The CIA also has a habit of destroying documents more so than other spy agencies (Iran-contra comes to mind).

You can get all US declassified documents at the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Thanks for the information. That's exactly for what I was looking.

George Washington University's National Security Archive is the leading non-profit user of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

Bravo for GWU for taking responsibility and bringing this information into the public domain. Appreciate the link... it should provide some interesting reading tonight...

Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld video

Citizens should know what their government is doing! It's a responsibility of being a citizen. Geeks/nerds are citizens too.

This release of information is also being released on the internet which allows for it to be quickly seen and evaluated by the masses. Releasing it onto the internet is indeed releasing it to the public.

What do we learn from such releases of information?

"Twenty years ago, on December 20, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld, currently the U.S. Secretary of Defense, held the first of two now-famous meetings with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad."

Source

AC

We do.

Rumsfeld & Saddam

of course they're not american... u.s. had never anything to do with saddam or any other dictatorship for that matter.
promotion of democracy and justice is their only motivation! pfffff

"The american way...": always find someone else to blame!

How is killing 9,000 more of Hussein's victims justified by the crimes of his regime?

And before you bring up the 1983 gassing of an Iraqi village and adjacent Kurdish internment camp (during the war between Iraq and Iran), how about bringing charges against the American Military advisors who were on the ground with the Iraqi troops that day, or the American arms suppliers that sold the chemicals to Iraq, or the administration that was simultaneously supplying weopons to both sides of that war (to Iraq through France, and to Iran through Israel.

As for the killing of dissidents, what Western government do you think was the most active in promoting the practice of killing dissidents ("damn commies!") in Iraq and other Mid-East countries? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Canada.

Take a bit of and think, perhaps learn a bit of history. There's more to current events than you can possibly learn watching Fox News.

I won't have time to discuss much this week, for obvious reasons.

That's cool... just respond when you feel like... if you feel like...

I'm going to quote all over the place. I am NOT going to be quoting chronologically. I think it is best to divide up up argument into different topics.

Democracy & Media

I'm not arguing that capitalist democracies are perfect, only that they are the best thing we have found.

First of all, I am not arguing against capitalist DEMOCRACY; I'm arguing against capitalism. Capitalism has nothing to do with democracy. If anything, pure capitalism and pure democracy are contradictory. You can just look around to see why this is so. As a matter of fact, democracy can even be traced back to Roman and Greek societies. Those societies were hardly capitalist. In addition, no country is a democracy. I refer to countries like USA as a PLUTOCRACY. Capitalists like yourself don't like to admit it but that's how I see it.

USA isn't a democracy? NY Times and Washington Post seems to unearth more scandals in the US president administration than the rest of the world's media do in all of the world's governments.

Do you think the intellectual elite created no scandals when monarchs ruled? You can even find the media reporting on "scandals" in a totalitarian country like China of all places!

Washington Post is a mouthpiece of the government. One day it is pro-Democrat; the next day it is pro-Republican. Its opinions and words are based on who is in power.

Although better than others, New York Times is an establishment paper. Sure it unearths hidden issues. But how many of these are important? Figure out how many US media covers the atrocities committed by right wing forces allied with the Colombian goverment, which is supported by USA! Or, try to find an article that talks about "iraqgate" ( another here). How about the Waco atrocity? I mean, people STILL have no idea what happened to President Kennedy! Or better yet, how come the media has said nothing about the Anthrax Assasin? The Anthrax Assasin killed more Americans than than Saddam Hussein! Where is your "democratic and free" media?

The problem is that you have no idea what is going on. It's not just you but the VAST MAJORITY of people are like that. They just take what is fed to them. When the media just regurgitates White House press releases, you just accept it. You also fall for propaganda and disinformation. It's just too bad that you don't realize that the New York Times (or for that matter, most media) are controlled by the government. How many US media had anti-war commentators or activists in the run-up to the war? Almost ZERO! That's not a free media! That's not a fair media! And it certainly isn't democratic either!

Just because the media is supposedly free, doesn't mean all is well. Similarly, just because someone can vote doesn't mean it is democratic. I mean, citizens were able to vote as far back as 150 years ago yet no one in their right mind would consider these countries very democratic at that time. In fact, if you went to government propaganda, almost 70% of the countries are democratic. Of course, nothing is further from the truth.

Premanent War for permanent Peace

Personally, I don't really care that much about the rights of dictatorships. The Iraq invasion was stupid -- but good for Iraq, I guess, since it was a Stalin-like dictatorship and probably couldn't have been overthrown in any other way.

So let me ask you this. If I invaded your country and killed 10,000 people to kill a dictator, it's ok with you? What if one of your loved ones--or even you--were killed? You live in a black & white world driven by the propagandists. To you, only the d

Does liberating a nation ruled by a dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen make America morally superior to the French who actively supported that dictator? You betcha.

I'm glad Saddam has gone, but if the US is going to invade other countries if they are run by dictator then I can think of plenty of other countries which need the US' help. Why aren't they rushing to their aid?

(Yes, we supported him during the Iran-Iraq war, just enough to keep Iraq from losing but not enough to win. Nearly all his weaponry has always been from France and Russia though. I assume no one is foolish enough to think that an Iranian victory would have been a good thing?)

And letting him use chemical weapons on the Iranians was also fine.

Excuse me but what statistics have you read? The war was probably about a 50/50 split in the US. Where did this slim minority BS come from?

Ok, so where are your stats.

Yes the many other Islamic countries were against the war. Islam has taken over 100 countries in the world now. If they feel threatened by anyone dealing with another Islamic country, then that's life.

There are a few interesting things I'd like to point out here. First, your use of 'taken over' in reference to Islam. How many countries has Christianity 'taken over'? Why do you think the country has been captured by a religion? And which hundred countries do you suppose this has happened to? I bet you can't name a dozen.

As far as France, Russia and Germany, yes they also didn't want the war. They were supplying Saddam and were owed billions. They still are. People forget that France was making the planes that Iraq used to gas its own people. That is why there was so much pressure against it. Those countries stood to lose money they were owed if the US invaded. You people are so easily swayed by propaganda instead of looking at facts that you really piss me off.

Ah, yes. It pisses me off too, which is why I'm replying to your bad information.

France, Russia, China, the USA, and Germany have all provided military equipment to Iraq. The USA has additionally outfitted Iran and several neighbours. The Russians, Germans, and French are owed money largely for infrastructure, electrical generators, sanitation equipment, and the like. But get this straight - no one is innocent in this, and the USA is certainly, far and away, the worst offender.

The helicopters - not planes - that Saddam used to gas the Kurds were from Bell Helicopter Textron and Hughes, which are both US companies. Any planes Saddam had have been grounded (and indeed, literally buried) since the No-Fly Zone was established after Gulf War 1.

So go check out that link and educate yourself, before the next time you go spouting off about things you know nothing about.

Fuck France

Oh, you don't want to get into that. France has much more effective curses to hurl back at you.

--VERY LONG--
I hope you take the time to read this because I spent some time on it :)

Since the "end of major combat", fewer civilians have been killed as a result of insurgency than would have been killed by Saddam's regime (on average).

Speculation can lead to your demise. Let's see. Approximately 1500 have died since the "end of major operations" in Baghdad ALONE. That's all in half a year (approximately). Who knows how many have died in other areas. Let's say an average of 3000 in one year (that's just one city too, although the biggest city). What was Saddam's biggest atrocity? Probably his chemical attack against Kurds in Halabja. Supposedly this killed 5,000. Now, are you telling me that Saddam was killing more than 3000 per year before the war? Do you have any proof other than the US government (propaganda) documents?

As a side note, Saddam killed A LOT during the Iran-Iraq war. I'm not counting these people because it is hard to say what was going on at that time. It's not clear how many of the deaths at that time were human rights abuses, and how many were war casulties. Also, the US government backed Saddam Hussein at that time (remember this famous photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?)

I envision an Iraq where the money from oil revenues pays for schools, roads, hospitals, and other social services, so that people don't have to pay taxes or have any other financial burden of the like.

Is USA going to be profitting from this? Or is this supposed to be a neutral thing left to the Iraqis to decide? How much do you want to bet that American oil companies will control all the oil coming out of Iraq in 10 years?

I envision free press (which already exists now), and a place where people can be as secure in their persons as people are here in the U.S. Part of my vision is already come to pass - there is freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to dissent - freedoms they didn't have before.

There sure is a lot of free press in Iraq right now ;| Just recently the IGC banned Al-Jazeera and a bunch of other media. That's free media to you? A while ago the same thing happened. I can't find a link to the newsj--sorry about that (sucks how you have to pay for newspaper archives). But read the beginning of this article. This article is from Justin Raimondo who is on the far right so I don't necessarily agree with it or him (I'm on the far left) but it illustrates my point. You only have to read the beginning part.

The problem is that you are either a neoconservative who is in favour of imperialism (unlikely), or that you are a naive "liberal" (likely). You ACTUALLY think what Bush said in front of the National Endowment for Democracy will happen/is true. Sad to say, it won't and it never has. You just CANNOT bring democracy and freedom to a country with a gun. Gunpoint democracy is doomed to fail. The last person to try that was probably Lenin (and his invasion of Poland) but it never got anywhere. Name ONE country that USA has meddled with since WWII, that ended up democratic or free. The answer is absolutely ZERO! There are lots of examples (El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Panama, Colombia, Iraq (before), Iran, Indonesia, Philliphines, and so on) but it never worked.

Democracy and Freedom has to come from WITHIN the people (if you are a liberal you should know this already). Foreign forces can never impose it on others. It's just like say women's rights or equality or something. Contrary to what conservatives think, you just cannot bring equality to women in the Middle East (for example) by forcing the people to accept it. It's too bad the conservatives don't understand liberalism (whi