Slashdot Mirror

Sanctions have ended and Saddam will not return. That is wonderful. But for the record:

Saddam pocketed a bunch of the money

Of course the Iraqi government was creating cash revenue for itself. The oil-for-food (O.F.F.) program only provided commodities in exchange for oil; it didn't allow the government any access to cash. How well would the US government function without cash? Oil smuggling was the only thing that gave a salary to Iraqi teachers, public healthcare workers, and civil servants. Physicians in particular began receiving salary increases that were proportional to the crumbling of sanctions in 2000. Sure, the regime invested in social services partly to reduce popular discontent; it was self-serving. But that doesn't change the fact that sanctions, not just Saddam, violated Iraqi human rights and were in fact designed to. Bush Sr. thought of this as "Making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people."

The UN sanctions were suppose to let food and medicine get to the people of Iraq

Actually no, they were supposed to appear to allow this on paper, but not in practice. For six years Iraq could sell no oil, which cut off 90 per cent of its foreign revenue at a time when Iraq imported two-thirds of its food. As the UN predicted (Bush Sr. ignored it), this led to massive malnutrition. In 1996 the O.F.F. program began, with a pointless cap on oil exports. Two years later the cap was removed, but the US and Britain tied up $5 billion of humanitarian supplies including many spare parts for the oil industry. The point wasn't to kill Iraqis; that was just an "acceptable" consequence of wrecking Iraqi oil production and undermining its global market influence. This should come as no surprise. Donald Rumsfeld certainly wasn't preaching human rights when he shook hands with Saddam, as Reagan was launching his campaign to support Iraq's unconventional weapons development.

No wonder UN humanitarian coordinator Denis Halliday said the O.F.F. program was "designed to fail". I heard this with my own ears when Halliday spoke in New York; similar things from his successor Hans von Sponeck when he spoke in Milwaukee; and more diplomatically from Sponeck's successor Tun Myat when he spoke in Baghdad.

the facts are pretty simple.

Not really, as I have shown. I'm glad this is behind us, but if the history books are honest, they will slaughter the leaders on both sides.

AP, Saddam Hussein has been rescued from a farm house near Tikrit, Iraq. The leader had gone missing - presumed kidnapped by loyalists months before. Mr Hussein has already been reunited with long-time friend Donald Rumsfeld by video phone who was reported to say "Hey Saddam! Hows it going? i havnt seen you for years". There was some speculation that video footage of Saddam Hussein recieving a medical check violated the geniva convention but that was quickly dismissed by the ex-leader saying "I've got no problem with the cameras aslong as they arnt from fucking OK Magazine or the Sun!".

Meanwhile the Queen of England, in spirit of inviting potential dictators around for tea has already asked Mr Hussein to join her in Buckingham palace. Tony Blair and George W. Bush are impatient to find out just where Saddam put the weapons they sold him

This chap too

Let me remind you about the shady deal involving Bechtel (one of the mentioned corporations) and Iraq. In November 1983, Secretary of State (and former Bechtel president) George Schultz received an intelligence report describing Saddam Hussein's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons. He took no action. In December 1983, Special Envoy Donald Rumsfeld was sent to meet with Saddam. They discussed a possible oil pipeline from Iraq to Jordan, to be constructed by Bechtel. Have you ever seen that photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam? That's when they met.

The US. eventually condemned Iraq's use of WMDs, but the Pipeline talks continued until 1985, when the deal fell apart, reportedly because Saddam felt that Bechtel was overpricing the job. However, Bechtel managed to secure a contract with Saddam in 1988, to build a Chemical plane outside of Baghdad. Did nobody suspect that it could be used for evil, or was money more important? Anyway, the construction was halted after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Now, in 2003, Rumsfeld is secretary of Defense, Saddam is gone, and George Schultz is a board member of Bechtel- which has just been awarded in April 2003 a $680 Million Iraq reconstruction contract! Stuff like this is why people hate corporations.

and the our "right-thinking left-wing friends" never say shit about it?

Actually, we do. A lot. It just never gets to the news. I'm too young, but my parents have spoken up on every conflict there was.

In the case of Iraq, Amnesty International had a huge body of knowledge about the atrocities committed by Saddam.

Unfortunately, when Ronald Reagan decided Saddam was the good guy, and sent Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with him, it gets really, really hard to say otherwise. Furthermore, when Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja, the Reagan administration blamed Iran, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and voted down every condemnation of Iraq, but inside and outside the US.

OK, but that's history. How about today? Now that Saddam's gone, there are other dictators that should follow. For example Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. The democratic opposition had great hopes when America entered Central Asia. Unfortunately, you let them down. Islam Karimov is now one of the cherished allies in the "coalition". With US support, he has semented his power. Perhaps it is not too much to ask that you at least stop supporting the worst dictators on the planet, and let the people have a chance to get rid of them themselves?

I realize anti-Americanism is popular, but ...

Uhm, no, you missed the point. It's not anti-americanism to tell America it's wrong. OK, you can find anti-americanism, and it is a fair amount of around, on the form: "America is headed for the quagmire (hehe)". But it is not anti-americanism to say that "America is headed for the quagmire, and we have to work with america to change its course". The latter is far more common than the former.

The difference between America and China is that America is a democracy and it has a free press. Those two things should make it possible to get through to America far more easily than to China. So, the reason why America is addressed is that there are certain values it tends to uphold. That's not anti-americanism, to the contrary, it is recognition. But it also demands of you that you realize that your current President is wiping his ass with your constitution, and that you get rid of him. Nobody else can do that but you.

First of all, learn how to spell personel if you are going to present yourself as a member of the military, please try not to embarrass all of your fellow enlisted and the veterans who might be reading by coming of as a self agrandizing and egotistical idiot. You do those you associate yourself with a disservice.

Second of all, if you are going to present yourself as a member of the military, please don't automatically assume that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is unpatriotic. A lot of us who think that your viewpoint is reprehensible and your presentation of that viewpoint is genuinely disengenuous (where were you during all of the events that you mentionded.) are veterans and active duty personel. Most of us have taken the time and effort to understand the historical background of the events that you mention.

I hear a lot of talk from a lot of people. But never any action.

You hear a lot of talk because this is merely a news site with a discussion group. You have no way of knowing what action any of the posters might be involved in. You have little chance of learning who any of us are (OTOH, we might actually be sitting near you when you drink your coffee. We might actually know who you are. One of us might even be your therapist) and there is little you can do about that.

If you would like to actually understand a little about these topics you so often demonstrate your ignorance of, please take some time to poke around some primary source documents. The rest of us at least attempt to do our homework before coming to the argument, perhaps you could show a little respect and do the same.

I'm sure their parents must be real proud to know where their $30,000 a year is going.

Back to the math books for me...

I know some people support Pinochet, but you have to have a pretty dry heart or a very selective and short memory to do that. In particular you have not to mind torture and assassination as means of government.

I've met a young Chilean who said exactly the same thing as you quote. To me this proves that propaganda works really well. S. Allende was not bringing Chile down the path of Cuba, in fact Chile was the most prosperous South American country when the coup took place. Allende was not communist, but he did have a democrat socialist agenda (like many European countries do now). Moreover Allende had been democratically elected. Yes Allende was not particularly or at least not sufficiently pro-US. This does prove my point that America is not particularly pro-democracy abroad.

Then I asked the same young Chilean if he thought the Chileans in exile had a similar opinion to his, particularly the families of those that the Pinochet government tortured in Chile and assassinated in various countries, he had no reply.

A few years ago Pinochet was arrested in England after Spain laid charges against him for political assassinations of Spanish citizens *in Spain*. There assassinated people were ex-Chileans in exile that Pinochet took great pain to kill. Unfortunately he got off on health grounds, but it would have been interesting to follow his trial, because a lot of very dirty secrets would probably have been revealed.

I can't believe anyone with any sense of humanity would defend such a man as Pinochet.

You can read this if you want.

Not shaky at all, this is very similar to the petagon papers, except it is against a private company. However, since this involves voting rights, there is overwhelming public interest in the content given that this invloves election fraud. More on the pentagon papers.

but it's the only thing we've got.

The bigger shame is how few Americans actually read the stuff.

If you'd like to avail yourself of this "sham", please feel free to visit the National Security Archive.

If you'd like to learn something more about the pricks who are currently running this country.

I especially advise you check out the section on the Iran Contra Affair. Many of the criminals mentioned in these docs are currently serving in the Bush administration.

If you would like to get some perspective on the Taliban, Al Q'aeda, and September 11 that the mainstream press doesn't quite cover, read the September 11th Sourcebooks.

And always remember to search beyond the collections to find the stuff they forgot was released in other investigations (such as this evidence that Rumsfeld, Poindexter and pals were paying for thier illegal terrorist operations in Central America with DRUG MONEY)

There may be problems with FOIA, but the biggest problem is that not enough of you are willing to make use of what is available.

but it's the only thing we've got.

The bigger shame is how few Americans actually read the stuff.

If you'd like to avail yourself of this "sham", please feel free to visit the National Security Archive.

If you'd like to learn something more about the pricks who are currently running this country.

I especially advise you check out the section on the Iran Contra Affair. Many of the criminals mentioned in these docs are currently serving in the Bush administration.

If you would like to get some perspective on the Taliban, Al Q'aeda, and September 11 that the mainstream press doesn't quite cover, read the September 11th Sourcebooks.

And always remember to search beyond the collections to find the stuff they forgot was released in other investigations (such as this evidence that Rumsfeld, Poindexter and pals were paying for thier illegal terrorist operations in Central America with DRUG MONEY)

There may be problems with FOIA, but the biggest problem is that not enough of you are willing to make use of what is available.

but it's the only thing we've got.

The bigger shame is how few Americans actually read the stuff.

If you'd like to avail yourself of this "sham", please feel free to visit the National Security Archive.

If you'd like to learn something more about the pricks who are currently running this country.

I especially advise you check out the section on the Iran Contra Affair. Many of the criminals mentioned in these docs are currently serving in the Bush administration.

If you would like to get some perspective on the Taliban, Al Q'aeda, and September 11 that the mainstream press doesn't quite cover, read the September 11th Sourcebooks.

And always remember to search beyond the collections to find the stuff they forgot was released in other investigations (such as this evidence that Rumsfeld, Poindexter and pals were paying for thier illegal terrorist operations in Central America with DRUG MONEY)

There may be problems with FOIA, but the biggest problem is that not enough of you are willing to make use of what is available.

but it's the only thing we've got.

The bigger shame is how few Americans actually read the stuff.

If you'd like to avail yourself of this "sham", please feel free to visit the National Security Archive.

If you'd like to learn something more about the pricks who are currently running this country.

I especially advise you check out the section on the Iran Contra Affair. Many of the criminals mentioned in these docs are currently serving in the Bush administration.

If you would like to get some perspective on the Taliban, Al Q'aeda, and September 11 that the mainstream press doesn't quite cover, read the September 11th Sourcebooks.

And always remember to search beyond the collections to find the stuff they forgot was released in other investigations (such as this evidence that Rumsfeld, Poindexter and pals were paying for thier illegal terrorist operations in Central America with DRUG MONEY)

There may be problems with FOIA, but the biggest problem is that not enough of you are willing to make use of what is available.

1. Afghanistan, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003
2. Bosnia, 1994, 1995
3. Cambodia, 1969-70
4. China, 1945-46
5. Congo (now Zaire), 1964
6. Cuba, 1959-1961 ("Bay of Pigs" invasion)
7. El Salvador, 1980s
8. Grenada, 1983
9. Guatemala, 1954, 1960, 1967-69
10. Indonesia, 1958
11. Iran, 1987
12. Iraq, 1991-2000, 2003 (The U.S. government used radioactive bombs in the first war against Iraq. See United States War Crimes Against Iraq for what appears to be an accurate history.)
13. Korea and China, 1950-53 (Korean War)
14. Kuwait, 1991
15. Laos, 1964-73
16. Lebanon, 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
17. Libya, 1986
18. Nicaragua, 1980s
19. Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it "Operation Just Cause". The link is to a U.S. military web site.
20. Peru, 1965
21. Somalia, 1993
22. Sudan 1998. There are doubts

If you would like to see these documents yourself you can go ahead and make your own FOIA request.

Some instructions can be found at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia/howtofoia.ht ml

The contacts addresses can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/foiacontacts.htm

If you are interested in making the government work for you then issue requests! There aren't many easier ways to get government information that you are interested in.

When you issue a request, the government is required to submit an answer within within 20 business days. Furthermore, if they deny your request they must give you a reason and you have the ability to appeal and or sue. If you are publishing the information you obtain for the public good you shouldn't even have to pay for the request.

Despite recent advances in economic freedoms, China is still a dangerous totalitarian regime. In the west, we rail against the abuses of the State, and rightly so, but the abuses of the west are nothing compared to China.

To say "Go China" is to deny the real and substantial differences between liberal democracies and repressive regimes. I can say that W is a dummy with impunity in the US. Chinese citizens can't do likewise. These freedoms make forums like slashdot possible, and are directly responsible for the wealth and privilege that I and many many others in western democracies enjoy.

I hope that China will join the community of nations that protects the rights of the individual. Maybe the power they now have will help them, and the rest of us, fulfill the promise of the American Declaration of Independence. In the meantime, don't make the deadly and dangerous mistake of confusing interesting technology with "good." Linux and spaceships can be used for good and evil.

Before CDC, credit card companies used to send cards to anyone, being it requested or not, and all you needed was to unlock the card. With the new law, this kind of behaviour is not tolerated anymore.

Our Ministerio da Justica (kinda DoJ) have a division of consumer protection (in portuguese).

The real question is which are they? One mans' terrorist is another mans' freedom fighter.

I don't think most liberals deny the existence of evil; rather, I think they see evil in places where you don't. Like here here , here, and here. Of course, there is also this.

Evil is all too common; don't turn a blind eye to the evil which you find convenient.

The real question is which are they? One mans' terrorist is another mans' freedom fighter.

I don't think most liberals deny the existence of evil; rather, I think they see evil in places where you don't. Like here here , here, and here. Of course, there is also this.

Evil is all too common; don't turn a blind eye to the evil which you find convenient.

Well, I guess it's lucky for me that I never had to consider that (except for an hour or so during Powell's ultimately dissatisfying speech to the UN). Let's check the scorecard:

• Nukes? No
• Poisons? None since the 1980s
• Germs? No (*)
• Al Qaeda? No
• links to 9/11? No
• cakewalk? No
• renewed prosperity? No
• democracy in Iraq? Not even close
• democracy domino effect? Not a chance

and you've seen me in the neighborhood a couple times with some known violent criminals

Like Pinochet, Noriega, Khomeni, Hussein, Bin Laden et caetera? Those kinds of violent criminals?

and you've seen me in the neighborhood a couple times with some known violent criminals

Like Pinochet, Noriega, Khomeni, Hussein, Bin Laden et caetera? Those kinds of violent criminals?

Oh, you mean those Kurds that were being gassed back in 1983, when Saddam's best buddies (Reagan/Bush) sent Donald Rumsfeld to help him plan military strategy?

Gee..What we need is a language that has been around for a long time. Is ISO standardized. Supports OO. Has the power to do low level programming when required. It would actually have to be fast and efficient . It would also be good if it had run time checks on things like buffer overflows but also made them less likely by the structure of the language itself (e.g. Doing pass and array and a separate array size but have the language know about the size of the array to start with). It would be good if this language already had a free implementation. It would have to work under Windows, Linux, most other Unixs and a lot of embedded targets. It would have to have the option of easily letting the user suppress the run-time checks if required but have them basically on by default. Hopefully we could do something in the language that would at least help reduce bugs. But we have to be realistic too. We probably won't be getting rid of Windows any time soon so this made up language would also need to be able to interface easily to things like COM/DCOM for windows. It should also support things like Gtk+ and GNOME out of the box. Hmm...Sounds Like Ada. Oh but wait..It does not use ugly C syntax so programmers will never use it...Not to mention that problem with the military being involved at the beginning (but lets just overlook that for the whole internet thing)...

So, I'm not old enough to remember...what happened when you wrote bad code like this on the TRS-80?

We elected Reagan. Except that time, the countries included such dangerous regimes as Nicaragua and other Latin American countries.

(I wish someone besides the AC had noticed the obvious flaw in the program! ?OD ERROR IN 20 Remember, y'all, it had to be short enough to be funny.)

Not "proof", but ever is.

Here is an article ,originally publushed in The Observer, that makes a good case for U.S. involvement in the Venezuelan Coup D'etat that overthrew the Chavez Presidency.

It is fair to note that the article is accurate in it's disparaging remarks about both Otto Reich and Elliot Abrams.

The similarity between the ecconomic and historical events leading to the April Coup (US interference with trade, propaganda published by White House spokesmen in the US media, and demands that the democraticly elected President of Venezuela step down) are very similar to the events that occurred before the assassination of Allende in Chile.

This may not be the acual smoking gun, but this is.

US military personel and Intelligence Officers have been getting very upset when ordered to take part in poorly planned exercises that don't match ideals they joined up to defend.

two down. I may have to take a break soon, I do have a life you know.

I know that reading actual source documents can be rather dry and boring, but it is enlightening.

I'll handle each of your challenges in individual posts. Some of them are not absolutely provable (little in life ever is), but I can at least demonstrate that your confidence in your worldview is sorely misguided.

Looking around at one of my favorite sites, George Washington University's National Security Archive I found this page.

This is what I found:

Notes from a conversation between CIA Director Richard Helms and President Nixon that outlines the possibility of ecconomic interference with Chile, but also the possibility of an assasination of Allende if other means cannot be used to force him to step down. (the online archive includes only the cover shjeet from a collection of handwritten notes, you'll have to go to DC if you want to see the entire thing. Perhaps I'll get a chance to go there myself to transcribe them into web available and searchable form.)

Minutes from the meeting where Project FUBELT was established that include (item 5) that shows that National Security Advisor Henry Kissenger was directly involved in the planning.

and

An Operating Guidance Cable that specifically states that the U.S. policy is that Allende be overthrown by a coup (item 2). Item 6 actually confirms that there is such an activity policy known as "Black Operations". Hmm, all this conspiracy stuff, yet not a tin-foil hat in site.

You shouldn't make such assininely easy challenges.

I'll get to your other challenges after I walk my dog. I do have my priorities.

I know that reading actual source documents can be rather dry and boring, but it is enlightening.

I'll handle each of your challenges in individual posts. Some of them are not absolutely provable (little in life ever is), but I can at least demonstrate that your confidence in your worldview is sorely misguided.

Looking around at one of my favorite sites, George Washington University's National Security Archive I found this page.

This is what I found:

Notes from a conversation between CIA Director Richard Helms and President Nixon that outlines the possibility of ecconomic interference with Chile, but also the possibility of an assasination of Allende if other means cannot be used to force him to step down. (the online archive includes only the cover shjeet from a collection of handwritten notes, you'll have to go to DC if you want to see the entire thing. Perhaps I'll get a chance to go there myself to transcribe them into web available and searchable form.)

Minutes from the meeting where Project FUBELT was established that include (item 5) that shows that National Security Advisor Henry Kissenger was directly involved in the planning.

and

An Operating Guidance Cable that specifically states that the U.S. policy is that Allende be overthrown by a coup (item 2). Item 6 actually confirms that there is such an activity policy known as "Black Operations". Hmm, all this conspiracy stuff, yet not a tin-foil hat in site.

You shouldn't make such assininely easy challenges.

I'll get to your other challenges after I walk my dog. I do have my priorities.

I know that reading actual source documents can be rather dry and boring, but it is enlightening.

I'll handle each of your challenges in individual posts. Some of them are not absolutely provable (little in life ever is), but I can at least demonstrate that your confidence in your worldview is sorely misguided.

Looking around at one of my favorite sites, George Washington University's National Security Archive I found this page.

This is what I found:

Notes from a conversation between CIA Director Richard Helms and President Nixon that outlines the possibility of ecconomic interference with Chile, but also the possibility of an assasination of Allende if other means cannot be used to force him to step down. (the online archive includes only the cover shjeet from a collection of handwritten notes, you'll have to go to DC if you want to see the entire thing. Perhaps I'll get a chance to go there myself to transcribe them into web available and searchable form.)

Minutes from the meeting where Project FUBELT was established that include (item 5) that shows that National Security Advisor Henry Kissenger was directly involved in the planning.

and

An Operating Guidance Cable that specifically states that the U.S. policy is that Allende be overthrown by a coup (item 2). Item 6 actually confirms that there is such an activity policy known as "Black Operations". Hmm, all this conspiracy stuff, yet not a tin-foil hat in site.

You shouldn't make such assininely easy challenges.

I'll get to your other challenges after I walk my dog. I do have my priorities.

I know that reading actual source documents can be rather dry and boring, but it is enlightening.

I'll handle each of your challenges in individual posts. Some of them are not absolutely provable (little in life ever is), but I can at least demonstrate that your confidence in your worldview is sorely misguided.

Looking around at one of my favorite sites, George Washington University's National Security Archive I found this page.

This is what I found:

Notes from a conversation between CIA Director Richard Helms and President Nixon that outlines the possibility of ecconomic interference with Chile, but also the possibility of an assasination of Allende if other means cannot be used to force him to step down. (the online archive includes only the cover shjeet from a collection of handwritten notes, you'll have to go to DC if you want to see the entire thing. Perhaps I'll get a chance to go there myself to transcribe them into web available and searchable form.)

Minutes from the meeting where Project FUBELT was established that include (item 5) that shows that National Security Advisor Henry Kissenger was directly involved in the planning.

and

An Operating Guidance Cable that specifically states that the U.S. policy is that Allende be overthrown by a coup (item 2). Item 6 actually confirms that there is such an activity policy known as "Black Operations". Hmm, all this conspiracy stuff, yet not a tin-foil hat in site.

You shouldn't make such assininely easy challenges.

I'll get to your other challenges after I walk my dog. I do have my priorities.

I know that reading actual source documents can be rather dry and boring, but it is enlightening.

I'll handle each of your challenges in individual posts. Some of them are not absolutely provable (little in life ever is), but I can at least demonstrate that your confidence in your worldview is sorely misguided.

Looking around at one of my favorite sites, George Washington University's National Security Archive I found this page.

This is what I found:

Notes from a conversation between CIA Director Richard Helms and President Nixon that outlines the possibility of ecconomic interference with Chile, but also the possibility of an assasination of Allende if other means cannot be used to force him to step down. (the online archive includes only the cover shjeet from a collection of handwritten notes, you'll have to go to DC if you want to see the entire thing. Perhaps I'll get a chance to go there myself to transcribe them into web available and searchable form.)

Minutes from the meeting where Project FUBELT was established that include (item 5) that shows that National Security Advisor Henry Kissenger was directly involved in the planning.

and

An Operating Guidance Cable that specifically states that the U.S. policy is that Allende be overthrown by a coup (item 2). Item 6 actually confirms that there is such an activity policy known as "Black Operations". Hmm, all this conspiracy stuff, yet not a tin-foil hat in site.

You shouldn't make such assininely easy challenges.

I'll get to your other challenges after I walk my dog. I do have my priorities.

I know that reading actual source documents can be rather dry and boring, but it is enlightening.

I'll handle each of your challenges in individual posts. Some of them are not absolutely provable (little in life ever is), but I can at least demonstrate that your confidence in your worldview is sorely misguided.

Looking around at one of my favorite sites, George Washington University's National Security Archive I found this page.

This is what I found:

Notes from a conversation between CIA Director Richard Helms and President Nixon that outlines the possibility of ecconomic interference with Chile, but also the possibility of an assasination of Allende if other means cannot be used to force him to step down. (the online archive includes only the cover shjeet from a collection of handwritten notes, you'll have to go to DC if you want to see the entire thing. Perhaps I'll get a chance to go there myself to transcribe them into web available and searchable form.)

Minutes from the meeting where Project FUBELT was established that include (item 5) that shows that National Security Advisor Henry Kissenger was directly involved in the planning.

and

An Operating Guidance Cable that specifically states that the U.S. policy is that Allende be overthrown by a coup (item 2). Item 6 actually confirms that there is such an activity policy known as "Black Operations". Hmm, all this conspiracy stuff, yet not a tin-foil hat in site.

You shouldn't make such assininely easy challenges.

I'll get to your other challenges after I walk my dog. I do have my priorities.

I know that reading actual source documents can be rather dry and boring, but it is enlightening.

I'll handle each of your challenges in individual posts. Some of them are not absolutely provable (little in life ever is), but I can at least demonstrate that your confidence in your worldview is sorely misguided.

Looking around at one of my favorite sites, George Washington University's National Security Archive I found this page.

This is what I found:

Notes from a conversation between CIA Director Richard Helms and President Nixon that outlines the possibility of ecconomic interference with Chile, but also the possibility of an assasination of Allende if other means cannot be used to force him to step down. (the online archive includes only the cover shjeet from a collection of handwritten notes, you'll have to go to DC if you want to see the entire thing. Perhaps I'll get a chance to go there myself to transcribe them into web available and searchable form.)

Minutes from the meeting where Project FUBELT was established that include (item 5) that shows that National Security Advisor Henry Kissenger was directly involved in the planning.

and

An Operating Guidance Cable that specifically states that the U.S. policy is that Allende be overthrown by a coup (item 2). Item 6 actually confirms that there is such an activity policy known as "Black Operations". Hmm, all this conspiracy stuff, yet not a tin-foil hat in site.

You shouldn't make such assininely easy challenges.

I'll get to your other challenges after I walk my dog. I do have my priorities.

If you're asking for sources about the CIA's involvment in the 1953 coup in Iran, then I suggest the CIA's own declassified documents, compiled by the National Security Archive. Very enlightening. Basically, the democratically-elected govt. of Mossadeq was seen as too "independent", and so the CIA orchestrated a coup that placed the Shah and the Ayatollahs in power. The Ayatollahs eventually decided they didn't want to share power, and the rest is history, as they say.

Oh, and by the way, the U.S. also prompted the U.S.S.R. to invade Afghanistan by getting involved there first, contrary to the official propaganda at the time. Carter's National Security Advisor admitted as much...

Why does that not surprise me.

This crap has got to stop.

You're trying to depict the FBI as an organization of jackbooted Gestapo thugs, and that's unfair.

Thats purely disingenuous. The poster describes a scenario where the FBI is unknowingly acting on bad information, and you cry Godwin.

Perhaps your expiriences with The Agency are limited to your dad's company picnics, but they can be pretty farkin scary if they're going after someone they think is a bad guy.

As for the examples you asked for, I decided to expand beyond computer error and include other abuses of FBI authority as well:

WW2 internment

Black Panther Murders

Rescources at GWU's CNSS

Michael Riconosciuto who is serving time for dealing heroin after testifying against the government in Iran Contra.

and so on,

and so on,

and so...

1. Afghanistan, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003
2. Bosnia, 1994, 1995
3. Cambodia, 1969-70
4. China, 1945-46
5. Congo (now Zaire), 1964
6. Cuba, 1959-1961 ("Bay of Pigs" invasion)
7. El Salvador, 1980s
8. Grenada, 1983
9. Guatemala, 1954, 1960, 1967-69
10. Indonesia, 1958
11. Iran, 1987
12. Iraq, 1991-2000, 2003 (The U.S. government used radioactive bombs in the first war against Iraq. See United States War Crimes Against Iraq for what appears to be an accurate history.)
13. Korea and China, 1950-53 (Korean War)
14. Kuwait, 1991
15. Laos, 1964-73
16. Lebanon, 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
17. Libya, 1986
18. Nicaragua, 1980s
19. Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it "Operation Just Cause". The link is to a U.S. military web site.
20. Peru, 1965
21. Somalia, 1993
22. Sudan 1998. There are doubts that the pharmaceutical plant that was bombed was making weapons.
23. Vietnam, 1961-73 (An estimated 2,000,000 Vietnamese were killed.)
24. Yugoslavia, 1999

There are many sources for this information. For example, see this PBS web page: PBS: A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions (PBS is the Public Broadcasting System in the U.S.) Also see From Wounded Knee to Afghanistan: A Century of U.S. Military Interventions [zmag.org] and The government of the United States is a consistent opponent of international law. [prairie-fire.org]

I put some links and explanation together about wh

1. Afghanistan, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003
2. Bosnia, 1994, 1995
3. Cambodia, 1969-70
4. China, 1945-46
5. Congo (now Zaire), 1964
6. Cuba, 1959-1961 ("Bay of Pigs" invasion)
7. El Salvador, 1980s
8. Grenada, 1983
9. Guatemala, 1954, 1960, 1967-69
10. Indonesia, 1958
11. Iran, 1987
12. Iraq, 1991-2000, 2003 (The U.S. government used radioactive bombs in the first war against Iraq. See United States War Crimes Against Iraq for what appears to be an accurate history.)
13. Korea and China, 1950-53 (Korean War)
14. Kuwait, 1991
15. Laos, 1964-73
16. Lebanon, 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
17. Libya, 1986
18. Nicaragua, 1980s
19. Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it "Operation Just Cause". The link is to a U.S. military web site.
20. Peru, 1965
21. Somalia, 1993
22. Sudan 1998. There are doubts that the pharmaceutical plant that was bombed was making weapons.
23. Vietnam, 1961-73 (An estimated 2,000,000 Vietnamese were killed.)
24. Yugoslavia, 1999

There are many sources for this information. For example, see this PBS web page: PBS: A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions (PBS is the Public Broadcasting System in the U.S.) Also see From Wounded Knee to Afghanistan: A Century of U.S. Military Interventions [zmag.org] and The government of the United States is a consistent opponent of international law. [prairie-fire.org]

I put some links and explanation together about wh

So, MSNs getting a little self ritghtous about search engines in anticipation of the launch of the Microsoft search engine. Lets see how they stand up to thier own criticism. Just to be fair, well just count the first ten results on the page, as that is what we'll see on Google

Criticism 1: All Shopping, all the time:

flowers(MSN) Result: 7 sites selling flowers, 2 informative sites (one of which is part of MSN, and 1 site for searching yellow pages (also MSN). 80% comercial, 20% informative (and 20% self promoting).

flowers(Google) Result: 7 sites selling flowers, 2 informative sites, 1 selling flower themed e-cards. 80% comercial, 20% informative

Criticism 2: Skewed Synonyms:

apple(MSN) Result: 9 sites about Apple computers, 1 site about apple recipes (on MSN) 90% "skewed synonym", 10% traditional meaning (80% comercial, 20% informational and 10% self promoting)

apple(Google) 10 sites about Apple computers. 100% "skewed synonym" (80% comercial/promotional 20% tech support)

Criticism 3: Book Learning

This one's a little difficult to test, because what Mr. Johnson pretends to be concerned about is more due to the economics of publishing and the web than to anything that Google has control over. It seems that the concern is over Google's indexing of PDF files, but not indexing these files would leave out important archives of information that are published online in that format, such as most of the documents in George Washington University's National Security Archives. I don't think that there's a legitimate argument for not indexing PDFs, and I find it a little disturbing that some search engines do not. Google's ability to search for specific file formats has enabled me to weed out the nutcase sites, and returned a higher percentage of useful results when looking for Government documents for my research.

All in all, I find little difference between the two search engines when doing simple, one-word searches. MSN's web search is is just as guilty of Mr. Johnson's first two criticisms as Google. MSN's web search is intended as a marketing tool, not a user service. Looksmart accepts payment for better rankings and "expidited review". I doubt the new search engine Microsoft will unveil will be much different.

At least on Google, no one has to pay to get listed.

You just have to get linked.

So, MSNs getting a little self ritghtous about search engines in anticipation of the launch of the Microsoft search engine. Lets see how they stand up to thier own criticism. Just to be fair, well just count the first ten results on the page, as that is what we'll see on Google

Criticism 1: All Shopping, all the time:

flowers(MSN) Result: 7 sites selling flowers, 2 informative sites (one of which is part of MSN, and 1 site for searching yellow pages (also MSN). 80% comercial, 20% informative (and 20% self promoting).

flowers(Google) Result: 7 sites selling flowers, 2 informative sites, 1 selling flower themed e-cards. 80% comercial, 20% informative

Criticism 2: Skewed Synonyms:

apple(MSN) Result: 9 sites about Apple computers, 1 site about apple recipes (on MSN) 90% "skewed synonym", 10% traditional meaning (80% comercial, 20% informational and 10% self promoting)

apple(Google) 10 sites about Apple computers. 100% "skewed synonym" (80% comercial/promotional 20% tech support)

Criticism 3: Book Learning

This one's a little difficult to test, because what Mr. Johnson pretends to be concerned about is more due to the economics of publishing and the web than to anything that Google has control over. It seems that the concern is over Google's indexing of PDF files, but not indexing these files would leave out important archives of information that are published online in that format, such as most of the documents in George Washington University's National Security Archives. I don't think that there's a legitimate argument for not indexing PDFs, and I find it a little disturbing that some search engines do not. Google's ability to search for specific file formats has enabled me to weed out the nutcase sites, and returned a higher percentage of useful results when looking for Government documents for my research.

All in all, I find little difference between the two search engines when doing simple, one-word searches. MSN's web search is is just as guilty of Mr. Johnson's first two criticisms as Google. MSN's web search is intended as a marketing tool, not a user service. Looksmart accepts payment for better rankings and "expidited review". I doubt the new search engine Microsoft will unveil will be much different.

At least on Google, no one has to pay to get listed.

You just have to get linked.

Oh yes...

<sarcasm>
And if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists © Bush administration, Iraq 2003
</sarcasm>

PS: Shaking hands with terrorists

That's just it. For the most part, they can't do things like this because spending is allocated by Congress.

What do you think was going on during Iran-Contra? After congress outlawed the funding of US backed terrorism, the CIA continued thier operations using money from serveral sources, including private donations and selling cocaine

No agency would attempt to piss off Congress like that.

See the same links in reference to this statement.

That's just it. For the most part, they can't do things like this because spending is allocated by Congress.

What do you think was going on during Iran-Contra? After congress outlawed the funding of US backed terrorism, the CIA continued thier operations using money from serveral sources, including private donations and selling cocaine

No agency would attempt to piss off Congress like that.

See the same links in reference to this statement.

You mean, of course, that the US never starts anything, and has never started anything. I agree fully; our country does us proud.

Do consumers have the right to spy on the government?

How will they stop us.

But in another life Ilene Rosenthal was a piano teacher, which kind of means she's probably a more than handy musician. Dunno which posse she's down with, though :)

My advice to you, is to see what kinds of desks your school provides. I go to GW and half the desks are exactly wrong for desktops. It's almost like somebody decided that they didn't like desktops (large monitors, etc) and made a desk to that it wont fit.

Laptops are nice solely because it is easier to move them around (which becomes a big deal when you're switching dorms every year).

Less is more in college.

"The acute lethal dose varied from 400 ug/kg (dogs) to 1000 ug/kg (mice) (Appendix 12, page 20) and 1400 ug/kg (rats) (Appendix 12, page 49, Table XXVII)."

If you want to believe you're more radiation-hardened than a dog, go ahead and inhale plutonium dust to your heart's content.

However, 400 MICROGRAMS PER KILOGRAM sounds more like 20 MILLIGRAMS for a 50 kg (110 pound) human to me.

A caffeine LD50 is more like 10 grams (200Mg/kg * 50 kg).

The guy who compared caffiene toxicity to Pu239 apparently thinks nuclear press industry handouts are SCIENCE. Science fiction is more like it, except that most publishers dump crap that obviously contrary to known scientific fact into the bit-bucket.

Oops. Forgot this.

"Anyone interested in the activities of secret U.S. agencies may have been interested in a segment of the CBS show "60 Minutes" about the secret involvement of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the killing of General Rene Schneider of Chile. The show aired on Sunday, September 9, 2001. General Schneider was a strong supporter of democracy. Here are links to information about U.S. interference with democracy in Chile:

"National Security Archive Chile Documentation Project

'PBS News Hour: "... evidence of a policy to undermine democracy in Chile and to support dictatorship there"

"Hinchey Report, CIA Activities in Chile This is a U.S. government document."