Slashdot Mirror

First, the military targets people in areas with poor quality education and therefore little hope of doing anything better than frying potatoes. This has been shown by many studies.

See, now you're just lying again. Or delusional. Whatever. Either way, a quick and simple google search would have shown you just how wrong you are.

Second, while the military does test for intelligence (brain power) and tries to push the high scorers towards Intelligence (secret stuff) and electronics, recruiters lie to potential recruits in what - to astute individuals - are obvious ways.

And what might those ways be, hrm?

Third, once in the military, there is a constant barrage of mis- and dis-information directed at the soldier

lol. You really are delusional :) but it's hilarious to watch you opine on a subject with which you have not even a smidgeon of familiarity.

Finally, I would call into any serious question any statistics presented by the military as to the intelligence of their members.

Of course you would. Paranoia often accompanies delusions. And when the numbers are against you, it's much easier to cry "CONSPIRACY!!!!" than it is to revise your views based on the data.

For a few ideas of what might be in store from virtual worlds like Second Life in the future check out a trailer made for the "Federal Consortium of Virtual Worlds." This group has over a thousand members from government, the private sector, and educational institutions.

http://www.vimeo.com/4623997

You can find more information about the group and their next conference at:

http://www.ndu.edu/irmc/fcvw/fcvw10/index.html

A study for the American Physical Society concluded the ABL range against solid fuel ballistic missiles would be about 300km. This is too short to be effective in any of their tactical scenarios because the platform is so valuable it has to stand off a long distance from hostile territory. A range of 600km against liquid fuel missiles would make it useful against North Korea, but probably not Iran.

To be fair to me, Kennedy didn't bang his shoe at the UN yelling "We will bury you!" either, it was just a comparison of the the typical actions of the govt in response to the parent equating America's goals with the Soviet Union's goals. However, I did think Krushchev did both at the same time.

As for the American military's stated aim, I assume you mean this part "dissuade future military competition". I don't see how military competition could be construed as a plan to rule the world, and the first google link says this about military competition "The aim is not to prevail over a competitor; it is to avoid a competition." So really, the US just wants to avoid another arms race like with the Soviets.

I suspect this is futile, you're too busy campaigning to be bothered with facts, but....

Somehow I feel like this has become a process of doing your research for you.

Iraq Timeline


The British managed to keep that region in check for quite a long time. They handed back soveriegnty as a reward for helping out in WW1/WW2.

The British gained control over Iraq during WWI and gave them their independence in 1932 although it has been argued that they maintained control through a puppet dictator until WWII when they became no longer financially capable. At that point the US stepped in to try our hand at empire building. Prior to WWI they were ruled by the Ottoman Empire.

And you are saying we should follow the British example for ruling?

An example of British rule

"In 1921, Britain imposed a new monarch on Iraq - Faisal, "a king who will be content to reign, but not to govern," in the words of a British Foreign Office bureaucrat. The subsequent mass uproar was suppressed in brutal massacres in 1920-4. The brutality of British rule was captured in an infamous quote from Winston Churchill, who said "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes."

I don't know anything about that group, so I searched a little further and found this on GreenPeace.org

Greenpeace

"The first use of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East was by British forces in 1917, at a time when Britain occupied territory that was later to become Iraq. Chemical weapons were used in the process of welding the Kurdish north, the Shia south and the Sunni tribes around Baghdad, into an invented Iraqi 'kingdom' to control the region's oil. Winston Churchill, then Colonial Secretary, found "turbulent tribes" of Arabs were fighting this imperialism with some success and encouraged the use of chemical weapons. There was some opposition to this in Whitehall but Churchill wrote: "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.""

What city would you like to gas first?

In the end you have the British 'ruling' Iraq for a period of roughly 15 years. And during that period they used poisoned gas to suppress revolts whose purpose was self rule. I guess the dead were peaceful and the rest were too afraid to complain.

Of course osama was revoked his Saudi citizenship because they weren't happy with them. Iraq is an important step in the war on terror. Success in Iraq will be a major blow for the terrorists.

Here is a quote from a 'Special Press Summary' from the Virtual Information Center. I found it by searching FirstGov for information on 9-11

911 Highjackers"

From their web site:

"The Virtual Information Center (VIC) is a six-person cell that conducts research among public domain materials for the CDR U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) and his staff. The assessments generated by the VIC's researchers are disseminated to the headquarters staff and many other recipients as part of the VIC's situational-awareness mission."

In the section titled:

Saudi Crown Prince To Visit Moscow

"Fifteen of 19 hijackers in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were Saudis."

Add Osama to that and you have 16 out of 20 were Saudi citizens. Yet we chose to attack Iraq, their neighbor.

I'm too lazy to look it up, it should be easy to find, but recently several experts on terrorism, and Al Qaeda in particular, have stated that all we have done with our unfocused 'war' is decentr

Apparently the phrase comes from the name of a book by two DoD consultants, Harlan Ullman and James Wade.

Here's the online version of the book.

Another article about it.

And yes, it seems to be a modified form of Blitzkrieg.

Here, and here.Rest of collection Here.
But an ASAT weapon such as this one (a missile, not a beam weapon), would have been picked up on radar/visual scanning, so this has to be an accident.

Here, and here.Rest of collection Here.
But an ASAT weapon such as this one (a missile, not a beam weapon), would have been picked up on radar/visual scanning, so this has to be an accident.

Here, and here.Rest of collection Here.
But an ASAT weapon such as this one (a missile, not a beam weapon), would have been picked up on radar/visual scanning, so this has to be an accident.

I personally have trouble believing that any terrorist cell is capable of that.
My bet is on an accident. But if some rouge state or group aquired ABM weapons, or a jet fighter with an ASAT weapon, that can shoot down objects in orbit.

I noticed that one post made mention of some ELF towers in Annapolis. Since I live in Annapolis, and had never heard of this, I got rather curious. After a quick Google search, I came up with a few interesting things:

• Although not as old as NAA, NSS is still in operation on VLF. In fact, it is the oldest continuously operating very low frequency station in the entire world! NSS is located on the small peninsula known as Greenbury Point on the northeastern shore of the Severn River, directly across from the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland. Found on http://members.aol.com/k6dc/history.htm. Check this link out for some good info and pics!
• LF (Low Frequency) and VLF (Very Low Frequency) antennas there are no longer used by the Navy and were made available for some experiments by AMRAD ... The Antenna, approximately 400 ft long, is suspended between two towers approximately 300 ft high. Found at http://www.amrad.org/projects/lf/March1999NSS/. More good pics of antennae and info on this link.
• 28. "ELF Communications System Isn't Needed, Might Not Work, GAO Says," Aerospace Daily, March 22, 1979, 107 (cites GAO classified report, The Navy's Strategic Communications System, PSAD-79-48); Seafarer ELF Communications System Final Evaluation Impact Statement for Site Selection and Test Operation (Washington, DC: Dept. of the Navy, December 1977). Found on http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/milgeo/milgeoch4n.ht ml
• The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone covering all waters within a 2,000 foot radius of each of three Very Low Frequency (VLF) towers located between Greenbury Point and Possum Point, near Annapolis, Maryland. Potts and Callahan, Inc. will be demolishing the three towers with explosives. This safety zone is intended to restrict maritime traffic in order to protect mariners from the hazards associated with the demolition. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/1999/Novemb er/Day-29/i30882.htm This was in December, 1999.

So it looks like the Navy did, in fact, have a rather groundbreaking ELF setup back in the day. Unfortunately those antennae seem to be gone now, but hey, technology marches on. Now that I'm reading some of these articles I know exactly which antennae they're talking about, and I do remember noticing that there seemed to suddenly be fewer of them a couple years ago...