Slashdot Mirror
UK National Archives Divulge Secrets
Sunil Sood writes "Yes, its that time of year again - no, not the New Year but when the UK National Archives release a whole lot of previously "classified" information (many govt papers in the UK, with only a few exceptions, are classified secret for a 'standard' 30 years) As normal, you have the usual combination of the amusing: The design of a coin to mark the UK joining the EEC was changed, after Prince Philip said he did not like the 'little p', and the more serious: it was believed the USA had plans for US airborne troops to seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1973."
We do. It's called the Freedom of Information Act.
You should listen to all the Nixon tapes - that guy had lots of crazy ideas. None where ever carried out though.
And it makes refrence that British Intel thought it would be likely that the US would invade, not that they were planning a direct attack. Its kind of a misleading headline.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
ours is 50 years, though. there was a /. post a few months back, regarding the unclassification of the documents from roswell on the date of the "alien landing". if i remember correctly, it reported the weather, and had nothing about little green men in a saucer...
What do you think military think-tanks and war games are for? They think up possible scenarios for just about anything and then research ways to acheive the considered goals. The ideas that work are made into operation plans and filed away for the off-chance that such a situation might arise.
We do.
Read, L
Yes, of course we have that... but I do not think that we are required to post the information after specific amount of time.
I was specifically talking about the 30 year rule.
AC
The British feared the US would invade. The report doesn't cite specific sources for this scenario. Likely it was the speculation of a few half-informed analysts. I'm sure there are reports circulating through classified networks arbout Libya's plan to join the EU and take it over. Or Syria's plan to grab the Golan Heights.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
What's the use of the Act if the government can just arbitrarily decide to deny requests made through it?
GRRRR. Why is /. so UK centric? Aren't the editors aware that there are people in other countries that read this site?
I have a shitty sig!
As usual, a grab bag of interesting things to be gleaned from declassified documents, although perhaps more interesting for their social context than for their political content, like the stuff with Massey-Ferguson and the ministerial scandal where the first thought was "Is this a security risk" rather than "Lets spin this to make it look good." We notice that resignations occurred. these days, the guilty parties would be given a slapped wrist and told to be more careful next time.
How times change.
"How fine you look when dressed in rage."
It should be noted that the intro to this piece -- and indeed, the BBC headline itself -- are a little misleading.
1. There is only one real fact in the piece: The British ambassador to Washington said that the American secretary of defense told him that "it was no longer obvious to him that the United States could not use force." Earthshaking, huh?
The rest of the piece is just more-or-less informed speculation.
2. Of course, I'm not trying to say American military planners *didn't* draw up contingency plans for seizing oil assets. In fact, quite the opposite: If they didn't, then they weren't doing their jobs. The BBC seems to consider this a remarkable revelation, but allow me to humbly suggest it would be more remarkable if military planners *didn't* include this fairly obvious scenario in their contingency planning.
- Alaska Jack
Is when Allies release previously classified documents, that could be potentially quite embarrasing to other Allies.
That plan to sieze oil fields for example, could be egg on the face of the US if it was released at the wrong time.
Who knows what other "interesting" documents were de-classified at the wrong time.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
How on earth did your post get modded informative? Sadly the Freedom of Information Act does nothing or else we would be able to see the fifty year old military documents that the government likes to hide so much.
The Pentagon is huge. I mean, really really big. And it's totally full of people who do nothing all day but sit around and plan out how the US would invade every single square foot of land on earth if we needed to. So obviously we had a plan to invade S.A. and Kuwait, just like we still do now (along with Latvia, Upper Volta, Cleveland, and anywhere else you can imagine.
And, btw, the report lists as a specific source the US Secretary of Defense, who said "it was no longer obvious that the United States could not use force".
All's true that is mistrusted
or at least hear about current plans about the Iraq situation. I could actually afford to bet at least 100€ on it, at least at the time of de-classification, that the US had planned more than they let us in on. And that would be BEFORE any claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction were even made.
So nice that, hopefully, not everything remains as a secret...
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
Here are some related links:
US ready to seize Gulf oil in 1973
Was America preparing a war for the Gulf oil in 1973?
Britain Warned of U.S. Plans After War
U.S. Mulled Seizing Oil Fields In '73 British Memo Cites Notion of Sending Airborne to Mideast
And this news item found originally on Reuters ties up nicely to the above:
U.S. OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation) Imports Set Record in 2003, Trend Seen Up
CRAP! I live in Rochester! >_<
Informatus Technologicus
Still, the US haters are going to use this to highlight how US's policy was always about oil. I wonder what this will do to Bush in the elections, probably nothing, too bad.
Now they've erased "WMD" from our collective minds as well, and has reduced the reporting of "Iraq has WMD and is buying nukes" to a "small error" which "should've been left out of the speech", yeah a small error which has left thousands dead, on both sides.
I'm sure those people enjoy the fact that they are dead because of one erronous sentence in Dubya's speech.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Yes, but why don't we have plans to switch away from fossil fuels? Why don't we have plans to make a more self-reliant society? Why don't we have plans to benefit all of mankind?
It's kind of sad to look back at the ignoble plans we have made and realize that we haven't really changed.
The warplan devised in the 20's for the defeat of Japan...
Even though the so called secret plans are only supposition on the UK MOD's part, the USA certainly has plans for invading just about every country on earth. This is not due to sinister intent, just responsable planning. The world is a strange and dangereous place where allies of today can quickly turn into deadly ennemies (Japan of the 30's, Iran in the 70's, Panema in the 80's, etc). The price of being unprepared is just too high in this day & age.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
My personal favorite 'secret' documents. Hmm. I wonder if that could be used today...?
The headline was misleading because it implied that the US was planning an attack - the reality was that Brit Intelligence thought that the US may have been planning an attack/invasion as opposed to having the actual invasion plans.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Has it occured to anyone that our Government (and any other industrialized nation) has "plans" on the books for just about every imaginable scenario? And should?
It's called "preparedness", kids. Thats what you pay tax dollars for. You pay tax dollars so that your country won't be caught with it's pants down when the shit hits the fan. Any government worth it's shit draws up plans in advance, anticipating what may happen. Thousands of them. Some of these plans are too scary for normal citizens to know about. But they have to be made.
The Arab oil embargo could have seriously crippled the American economy. That alone is reason enough to go to war. There would be rioting in the streets if the gas pumps stopped flowing, the machines stopped working, and industry ground to a halt. Think about that for a moment before running off thinking an invasion of Saudi Arabia & Kuwait is the byproduct of some oooh-so-evil secret Military comittee tucked away inside a super-secret mountain fortress, controlled by the psychic vampire Illuminati Freemasons.
Put your little conspiracy thoery hat back under your chair and get a grip. The Government is made up of people like you and me. If you had access to the same information they did, you would have made exactly the same arrangements, and outlined exactly the same contingencies.
Bowie J. Poag
Turner: What the hell does Counter Intelligence care about a bunch of goddamned books! A book in Dutch! A book out of Venezuela! ...mystery stories in Arabic! What the hell is so important about...(he stops dead.Still.) Oil fields. This whole damn thing was about oil. Wasn't it?
Atwood: Wait!
Turner:
Atwood: Yes, it is! It still is!
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Your post just proves trolls aren't doing much tonight.
This guy is way out there
Did they finally admit to knowledge of 007's actions?
~Chris Hammond
I do not think that we are required to post the information after specific amount of time.
Actually, we are.
Documents classified by government agencies have lifetimes of 5, 10, 15, 25 or 50 years (depending on category) unless specifically exempted by provisions in the National Security regulations. There are many different categories of exemptions, but the only "eternal" ones (that I know of) are those relating to specific intelligence-gathering information or operations.
Material falling under those exemptions can remain classified indefinitely until a FOIA request for that information causes the classified info to be reviewed by a judge who decides whether it is still relevant to national security interests. But most classified documents do have finite lifetimes and I'm sure the US national archives will get all sorts of interesting stuff coming out into the public over the coming decades.
We currently have PLANS to invade Canada, we have for years, the Canadians have the same "Plans" I figure buffalo might be in serious trouble.....
:) Heck, Minnesota would be pretty damn safe too, would you guys like to take Winnipeg from us, cheap?
Beleive you me, if we were to invade the States, Buffalo would be qute safe. You're welcome to that smelly city.
Now Vermont on the other hand...
Yet the US continues to treat this tyrannical monarchy as a "partner". Its all about money folks. Most major political figures since the 70s have prospered in one way or another from Saudi money. From Frank Carlucci (fmr Defense official) to Kissinger (former Dr. Strangelove impersonator) to Will Kennard (former FCC Chair) to former UK PM John Major to former President George Bush have been deeply involved in lobbying, consulting, or arms deals with the Saudi government. Most of this is facillitated by the Carlyle Group, a defense firm selling arms and influence to the highest bidder.
We buy their oil, they buy our weapons (and A LOT of them, no other arms buyng nation is even close) and they also enrich those making these deals happen - see again, the Carlyle Group. The word to people currently in office is clear - if you want to get rich when you retire, and I mean RICH, you make things easy for the Saudis now. They will take care of you later, typically to the tune of many millions of dollars.
Amazingly this means many people who were once US government officials spend their days brokering weapons deals with a nation that is deeply involved with terrorism abroad and despotism at home.
If you RTFA, you'll note the planned possible US invasion of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (and potential UK invasion of Abu Dhabi) was a potential response to the 1973 Arab oil embargo. That embargo was the Arab counterstrike against the US and Israel after the humiliating victory by Israel in the Yom Kippur War. That war, as anyone alive since then remembers, was so named after Egypt and Syria, surrounding Israel, combined in unprovoked sneak attack on Israel's holiest day, marked by national fasting and release from all work, including military. The cowardly attack was met with devastating counterforce from Israel, fighting once again for its existence (and the survival of its genome). So decisive was the Israeli recovery that disadvantageous borders, designed by the UN and exploited several times in the preceeding 25 years by hostile Arab neighbors, were pushed back into defensive border zones.
So a couple of Arab governments sacrifice many of their men to further their agenda of hatred and misdirection from their own tyranny, lose when their cowardly attempt at genocide underestimates the Israelis, and are immediately backed up by even more cowardly Arab governments with oil as a global economic tool. Which itself fails a few months later, when global economics takes the economy more seriously than the Arab vendetta, and some Arab governments break ranks.
When you look at the scenario, it's obvious that your statement is literally preposterous, turning its sights on the target of the hatred and greed: Israel. Arab governments have been flimsily uniting for over 40 years to destroy Israel for just the kind of evil you cite, coupled with a genocidal urge that was almost executed on the Israeli population immediately before the period we're discussing. Now that you know the actual facts, will you condemn the Arab countries for attempting on Israel the exact acts you found so contemptuous when portrayed in the reverse?
--
make install -not war
Read the 5th and 6th paragraphs of the link:
The British assessment was made after a warning from the then US Defence Secretary James Schlesinger to the British Ambassador in Washington Lord Cromer.
The ambassador quoted Mr Schlesinger as saying that "it was no longer obvious to him that the United States could not use force."
I guess directly naming and quoting the then US Defence Secretary isn't "specific" enough for you.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Things become declassified some time after it no longer serves any purpose to keep those things secret. There is no magical automatic expiration date on sensitive information. 50 years is probably quite long enough for most information to become irrelevant, but it would certainly be "ridiculous" to claim that all information should be declassified after fifty years. So long as the government has the authority to keep some things secret, it's well within that authority to keep things secret for fifty, or a hundred, or a thousand years. You may believe that fifty-year-old secrets are "ridiculous", but you can't justify that belief without knowing exactly what the secret is.
Wait, I thought Bush was going into Iraq to avenge his father's war? Who's this Nixon guy, and how do we prove his real name is Nixon Bush?
You mean the middle east has been a political hot spot since before any of us were born? I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
No.
The fact that this guy willfully taped all of this stuff is even more amazing than the content.
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
Of course, they could have said it was fine by them, for all any of us knows. We'll find out if the US retaliates with their own embarrassing declassification I guess.
Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
Nice put, Doc Ruby. I bet you'll just love this anti-Israeli, anti-American piece of euro trash
This guy is way out there
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
Oh, get over it. This is information that is 30 years old.
If you want to bitch about revealing the confidences of an ally, let's talk about the detailed briefings the US forces in Afghanistan gave about SAS operations there. In one briefing the US Army disclosed more about an SAS operation in the field than the British government has ever done.
One of the reasons the SAS is so successful is that they keep their tactics very close to their chests. Certainly they never reveal specifics, such as the strength of their assault forces, enemy kills and captures, objectives achieved, casualties sustained, etc. It's so nice of the US Army to fill in the blanks and piss away the concept of operational security for them though.
And I haven't even mentioned "friendly fire" incidents and the subsequent cover-ups with which any related investigations are almost always tainted.
You were saying something about the UK letting the US down?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
When it comes down to it, it's not thoughts but actions that matter, and thirty years is a long time (but not long enough for some that are still in positions of power who served with Nixon). There are probably enormous numbers of plans to invade Cuba, drawn up over decades, but if the USA was serious about it (and why would they be, they didn't govern it properly the first time, so why get it back) there would have been more than a bunch of civilians dropped on a beach by an inept intelligence agency.
In fifty years time will it really matter if the orange alert was just a publicity stunt - where each suspect aircraft so conviently came from France? There's enough information already in the public domain about war profiteering (which used to be a crime) and misapropriation of funds for the justice system to work with.
Being outside of the USA I was not so heavily affected, but prices did come up, and one oil company did try a little game with the government here. There were a lot of factors behind the shortage, but the biggest one was an oversupply of kerosine, and as such a lack of storage space for gasoline, so production slowed down and scarcity drove the price up. I seem to recall it hit the north of the USA more than the south, but someone who was there at the time would know more. In my country at the time, one oil company tried to get the government to pay for a new offshore oil platform, saying that the oil was all going to run out within a couple of years at the existing sites. The mines minister of the time called the bluff, and told them that if the oil was going to run out they didn't need the mining leases and he could sell those to someone else - so they backed off in asking for a handout. Thirty years later oil is still coming out of those oil platforms.From the article:
In the event, there was no military action. The oil embargo faltered and was ended a few months later. Israel and Egypt went on to sign a peace agreement.
Wow, imagine the embargo not faltering on its own, and the U.S. rolling in to take some oil fields. That would have made life more interesting back then, especially if we went into Kuwait and the Soviets goaded the Iraqis into trying to throw us out. A variant of the Gulf War being fought in 1973, with the U.S. as aggressor and Iraq as pseudo-defender. Definite alternate-history novel fodder here.
~Philly
Either a) Oil would be 10 cents a gallon and democracy would be everywhere in the MidEast. b) There'd be chaos everywhere.
We do. It's called the Freedom of Information Act
I dunno, the Brits seem to just dump out a document box after 30 years without much regard for what's in it.
The U.S. gives reporters who beg for a document pages and pages of blacked-out lines, with readable sentences here or there.
I think the US pays lip service to freedom of information, but it looks like our friends across the pond are more true to the concept.
You don't think that people in every country have a right to know what enemy militaries (i.e. any military that isn't their own) were seriously considering?
If the USA released declassified documents that the UK was thinking of invading them, would you have a problem? It's easy to have double-standards; if any other country did to America what the American government is doing to the rest of the world (demanding that Galileo be put on a frequency they can jam; invading other countries without permission from the UN) would you be pleased? Of course not!
By giving the military too much control over secrets (especially, but not exclusively, those of other countryes) you're paving the way towards a police-state.
Effective democracy simply keeps as many groups as possible squabbling so that no one can assume complete unaudited control.
Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
The BBC -- growing ever more akin to their tabloid cousins -- does this story every New Year's. Anyone old enough to read ought to read the story a second time to eliminate all the scaffolding, sensationalism and speculation added by the Beeb.
Americans tend to treat the BBC with a lot more reverence than it has deserved lately.
And, yes, for those who weren't alive yet in 1973, the notion that Western nations might eventually sieze the oilfields if the OPEC nations didn't end the embargo was under public discussion. No secrets there.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
"I dunno, the Brits seem to just dump out a document box after 30 years without much regard for what's in it."
Sorry not correct, there have been quite a number of times that the British Government has upped the time limit on the information due to be released (more from potential political embarrassment than because the information is sensitive for security reasons).
Anybody find the papers online anywhere? I fumbled around the UK website but couldn't find anything.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
OK, that wasn't falmebait, the parent was. Apparently one of my enemies is modding tonight
This guy is way out there
Now this here make Karl Malone real sad. I know the Easter Bunny don't give you none of the present you want for your Christmas list, but that ain't not no way to treat no holiday mascot. Now if you're going to insult the Easter Bunny, don't expect him to not plaster the side of your shelter with a dozen egg. You get that? Ah, that's good. Until next time, don't badmouth them mascot. This here Karl Malone.
True story.
Are you kidding?
The way to a police state has already been paved, the sidewalk poured, the trees planted, and Americans are driving down it in droves!
Why doesn't the US do this?
Do what? Seize the oilfields? I thought we just did.
I checked his journal, some posts, his homepage. I didn't see much to complain about, in spite of his claim to be "right wing", or his defensive denial of antisemitism. If he wants Israel to dump Sharon, and to find a better Palestinian policy than mass punishment for their terrorist army, I agree. If he's sensible enough to see that Israel is severely limited with the hypocritical, murderous tyrant Arafat at the top of the Palestinian meatgrinder, I'm with him. When people want the bravely out-of-range rightwing demogogues in charge of the Israeli and American military to get out of the way of their peoples' desire for peace, I'm with them. When they feel the same way about Arab left-right-whatever-they-call-it-today tyrants warring to mislead away from their own tyrannies, I'm with them. The truth about these monsters is bad enough without reversing history, like the relentless Arab military attacks on Israel, so I have to comment. But the more important truth is that we're all being set against one another in the name of geopolitics that is just a way for rich old men to make a buck at our expense, at the risk of the civilization that decent people have miraculously scrabbled together.
--
make install -not war
So why is it now such a big issue to you if Saddam had plans for WMD?
That war, as anyone alive since then remembers, was so named after Egypt and Syria, surrounding Israel, combined in unprovoked sneak attack on Israel's holiest day, marked by national fasting and release from all work, including military.
Unprovoked? Israel was occupying the Golan Heights and the Sinai. Sneak attack? Who attacked first in the '67 conflict?
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
My favorite theory is that someone just said "Catching terrorists is too hard, be we have to be seen to do something - lets get Saddam".
Yes, we can now tell exactly what implants were undertaken by OSI (Office of Scientific Intelligence not Open Source Initiative) after the severe injuries he sustained in a plane crash:
A 20.1:1 zoom lens along with a nightvision function in the left eye.
Bionic legs allow him to run at more than 67 mph and make great leaps. (Annoying sound effect sold seperately)
A Bionic right arm with the equivalent strength of a bulldozer.
source: The Six Million Dollar Man
Notice I got modded down for my first post?
This guy is way out there
Ironically, what would have made a lot of sense from certain points of view would have been to back an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
They would have gotten Kuwait (just look at a frickin' map. It stands as a prime example of what was meant when it was commented that the drafters of the Versaille Treaty needed to be given a book on elementary geography. Sooner or later Iraq had to make a grab for it) and they could have slipped us a bit of oil under the table and subtly undermined OPEC.
Of course, for all I know, that was the plan.
KFG
This user is using recycled stolen posts to karma whore
Please mod bomb this karma whore.
Yes, but why don't we have plans to switch away from fossil fuels? Why don't we have plans to make a more self-reliant society? Why don't we have plans to benefit all of mankind?
It's kind of sad to look back at the ignoble plans we have made and realize that we haven't really changed.
Why don't we have plans to give everybody in the world flowers, and a puppy? Its sad to look back at the ignoble plans we have made and realize that not everybody has seen a rainbow yet.
Best Slashdot comment ever
They are also *very* highly trained & are put thought *a lot* mentally and physically.
1973 - 1967 = 5 years. During which Israel occupied the Golan Heights and the Sinai, in which Egypt and Syria had massed troops for a 1967 invasion of Israel, which Israel anticipated and prevented. This is not a secret, as Egypt's Nasser had been posturing for his Arab buddies for months and years with a plan to attack. His mutual aggression pact with Syria, Jordan and Iraq is well documented, as they attempted to surround Israel in 1967. Israeli intelligence allowed their much weaker position to be well defended, and the underlying morale mismatch between the Israeli and Arab forces saw Israel turn the tide against the larger encircling force. In six days the Arab forces were defeated, with the Egyptian airforce destroyed. Israel was in a position to sieze much territory, inflict much damage, in the nearly unbroken military tradition since antiquity. Instead, Israel took control only of the territory used as a platform for the massed Arab armies. And the Sinai was reverted to Egypt after a reliable peace was forged between them.
In 1973, Israel was not so well informed, and the sneak attack by the recondite Egyptian and Syrian force was able to kill many civilians. But again the tide was turned. Egypt's government learned its lesson, and 7 years later Sadat was in power to forge the inevitable peace between the two neighbors. Syria has never accepted its obvious defeats, that it purchased with its own blood as well as its neighbors. Mainly because it covets Israeli reserviors, more strategic than oilfields in that desert region. Just ask the Lebanese, who have been subjugated by Syria for decades, their country used as a killing floor by Israeli-baiting Syrians, who use terrorists as a proxy army to kill Israeli civilians. And there's the value of Israel as a dump for Palestinians who have been penned in refugee camps in Syria and other Arab countries, without even the communities available in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Don't expect the conflict in the region to end until all these murderous hawks, from Assad to Arafat to Sharon, are replaced with actual representatives of their people, who actually benefit from peace, rather than the war machine which produced and perpetuated them.
--
make install -not war
By enacting regime change in Iraq, and trying to get something vaguely democratic and, theoretically, West-friendly, in that country, Iraq becomes a friendly source of oil. This means there's a limit to what its neighbours can do if they choose to withhold oil, as they did twice during the seventies. It also puts Iraq's neighbours on the defensive, because they know what happened to Iraq could, if the US feels mean enough, happen to them too.
Unfortunately too many critics of the war simplified the argument to "The US is just after Iraq's oil", which as you say, makes little sense.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I didn't notice, but I do notice a lot of my "progressive" posts tend to get modded as "trolls" and "flamebait", despite my inclusion of facts, reason, and even logical charity, as well as the absence of inflammatory language. A lot of the metamods I am offered also register troll/flamebait on merely controversial material. And only the old bugbears of nazism and associates seem to garner the same mod censure on the right. I chalk it up to a puerile denial of sinister history among the youthful Slashdot population. And do what I can to keep the sensible viewpoint of respect for humans, and faith in hope, alive in these pages. I commend you for doing the same.
--
make install -not war
We currently have PLANS to invade Canada, we have for years, the Canadians have the same "Plans"
Since the U.S and Canadian militaries are so tightly integrated, how would this work? The second in command of NORAD is always a Canadian.
American General: Launch all bombers to target Ottawa!
Canadian General: Yes sir! (to American Colonel) Launch all bombers to target Washington!
American Colonel: Yes sir! (to Canadian Colonel) Launch all bombers to target Ottawa!
Canadian Colonel: Yes sir! Launch all bombers to target Washington!
Etc...
Never said it was, I'da let him have Kuwait first time around, let him piss all over isreal and S.A. and made friends with him to buy lotsa oil cheap.
Social responsibility will never be as fun as self-serving opportunism.
A rolling stone is worth two in the bush!
At least you have the guts to spew your racist, subhuman insanity under a real userID. I wonder just how much you actually know about the billions the US has also invested in the Deutschland (that you can't even spell) that barely recovered from its insane culmination in the mid-20th Century? Or the conditions of the desert natives (including Jews) before Israel created the only democracy, the only functioning economy in the region? Perhaps you'd like to meet me in person some time, so we can discuss the finer points face to face? I'll be happy to offer you an example of a real human for you to attempt to emulate - you'll feel so much better when you shed your hatred fantasies and walk among the living.
--
make install -not war
Dono how it is set up now, the plan has been an excersice for many years now, just as the canadian plan is.
War Plan Red was the original plan,The plan called for quickly seizing the key port of Halifax to prevent British resupply; cutting communication between eastern and western Canada by capturing Winnipeg; securing bridgeheads near Buffalo, Detroit, and Sault Ste. Marie; and attacking Quebec overland from New England. If everything went according to plan, the U.S. military hoped to take the Great Lakes region and St. Lawrence valley before moving on the prairies and British Columbia. a serious one at that in the 20's-30's ,
Read "Bordering on Aggression: Evidence of U.S. Military Preparations against Canada." by Floyd W. Rudmin
Sigh. Iraq started selling oil for euros instead of oil for dollars. The US invaded. It's about control - the US dollar's value floats - if people stop trading oil for dollars, the dollar devalues. so the US, shortsightedly, invaded Iraq to "teach OPEC a lesson". Well, guess what, it did teach them a lesson, but perhaps not the one the US had in mind - and now Venezuela and several other countries are beginning to trade oil/euro instead of oil/dollar. The US just can't invade them all (a coup-engineering attempt in Venezuela already failed), and, while it hurts europe a little to have such a weak dollar, it hurts the US more.
Do you really think the USA is not getting any oil from Iran, despite the axis of evil tag? The only way the USA is going to get hit with an oil embargo is if they manage to piss everyone off in the middle east at once (a major feat), and if the supplies from South America and Africa don't come though.
So it was the *Jews* who attacked Pearl Harbor? Thanks for clearing that up for the rest of us. Aside: you should probably also consider that if the US hadn't got involved in the European theatre of WW2, then the Soviets would have ended up in a massively more powerful position there, and had a reasonable chance of actually winning the cold war.
1. King Hussein of Jordan, flew into meet Golda Meir (then PM of Israel) to warn her of an imminent attack. Golda simply humored the King based on advice from Moshe Dayan.
2. The Israeli's knew an attack was coming, they just thought (due to bad intel) it was coming a few hours later.
3. Apparently Moshe Dayan had an emotional breakdown during the early part of the war and reporters interviewing him, asked the PM not to let him on TV, cause his demenour would scare the public.
Anyways, after initial losses, the Israelis gave it to the Arabs but good. The Arabs were so pissed thier sneak attack didn't work, and that once again the Israeli's had defeated them on the land they drove the Christians out of, (who in turn drove the Jews out of, who in turn drove the Canaanites out of, and so on) that they blamed the US and placed the embargo.
Canada has... bombers... and... colonels? Wow.
I don't believe the neo-cons have any idea how dangerous the situation is that they're building for themselves. Looking at the rhetoric, it's genuinely clear that they believe that because they've rid Iraq of a highly unpopular dictator, the US is going to be the most popular country in the middle east. The risk they're taking, especially after 9/11, is stupifying.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Everything beyond that is whining.
Nope. Real countries are making real sacrifices for that greater good.
And in a future rife with WMD (don't doubt it), the country that wars over something like standard of living will find more than that in jeapardy.
If you can't address the issue head on, open the can of Israeli history (or propaganda, depends on who's reading it) with the the Theme from Exodus in the background.
The bottom line is that Israel did not make a formal declaration of war and wait for the Arabs to mobilize their defenses before making their first strike in '67. It does not change the fact that Israel's action was a "sneak" attack. It is why I perceive your characterization of the Arab's attack in '73 as being somewhat hypocritical.
The '73 "sneak" attack was pretty much inevitable. Israel was occupying lands that 5 years ago belonged to Syria and Egypt. If one is going to dictate borders on the political theory of "I can beat your ass if you try to take it back", one shouldn't be wailing with shocked outrage when the other side actually makes the attempt.
I don't think the conflict will end until the United States makes credible moves towards removing its economic support of Israel or cease meddling in Israeli politics. They are indirectly culpable for the current political state as all the other actors.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
From the BBC article:
"It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait "
The fact is that as the only superpower, America is the dominant country and is making the same mistakes that us Europeans made when we were in control. Unfortunately, whereas the last 500 years saw defeat on the batlefield as being the ultimate cost, we now see weapons of mass distruction. Look at the Europeans attempts to solve terrorism in Northern Ireland, the Basques or Schleswig-Holstein, and then see how unhelpful voilent "solutions" have been.
We know (sadly all too well) that you cannot fight terrorism with a gun - killing people only creates a new generation of terrorists - you can fight a country but you cannot fight ideas. I might suggest that the money that the US gives to Israel would be better spent on sending the Arab worlds brightest students to good American universities so thay can learn science over religion and take their ideas back with them.
In 1967 Egypt had blocked Israel's access to the Red Sea. A blockade is seen as an act of war by all countries. Israel had every right to attack Egypt and any country in a military alliance with it the instant the blockade started.
Sometimes, life is stranger than art, I suppose.
Those are interesting details, especially illuminating the value of Israel's alliance with Jordan. Perhaps if we had people of the stature of Meir and Hussein today, we might see their people led out of this mess, rather than deeper into it. Meanwhile, I note that you merely tweak the *degree* of surprise, several hours, which accounts for the early Israeli losses. The attempt at a sneak attack is no less sleazy for its near, and then ultimate, failure. That attack, of any kind, is emblematic of the Arab-Israeli war that has been waged with few respites as long as there's been an Israel for Arab governments to barely hang together to attack.
--
make install -not war
There are no saints in that region, no matter how you may paint it, Doc. It's one turn of barbarism for another, over and over, across the decades.
From another of your posts:
The best example I can think of comes from my home country: Kuwait.
Speaking of depending on the United States, you would be bowing to a painting of Saddam if it was not for the United States.
Because one day the UK will release the papers on their Alien encounter and then BAM! Aleins == Scifi == alien technology === Barbo Bots.
If you find my offer of education threatening, so be it. Your hatefilled mind has no other perspective. But as long as humans reach out to unformed children like you, there's hope that your hatred will fade into a historical curiosity. I wonder just who hurt you so badly that you must spit your venom on a people you don't understand, whose members you probably never even know personally. If you're lucky, you'll find someone to love, and find a way out past the hallucinations you create to keep you chained in the prison of your own mind.
--
make install -not war
Luckily, we don't need saints. We just need people who care more about peace than supporting the war machine. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". Even the clatter of keyboards in this discussion is a better alternative to war than the barrage of gunfire.
--
make install -not war
Mores the pity the middle east is the birth place of 3 of the worlds prevalent religions and has been a killing ground since the birth of history and longer.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
You do realize the blockade of the straits of Tiran was an act of war, regardless of who fired the first shot, don't you?
The Arabs blocked the Straits of Tiran? Boo hoo, get your shipping from Haifa or Tel Aviv. Gunboat diplomacy is gunboat diplomacy. Its then the jobs of the Ministry of Propaganda to make the assholes smell like roses.
Or do ya just hate jews?
No, but I hate people who distort the truth rather than scrupulously defend unpopular truths. I also hate people who think killing civilians is justified because they're Jews or Muslims.
What should I think of someone too craven to publicly stand by their statements?
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Strength of the assualt force might be something to worry about, but *damn* just one of those SAS guys would take out a room full of people before they even had a suspicious thought in their head, let alone what a small team of them could do.
From the parent parent poster:Those aren't "tactics", if anything they are operational statistics. Although...I guess...if you wanted to deduce something about the tactics from the statistics you could figure out that they are a world class special forces group and if they are using their "tactics" against you it means you are 0wn3d.
No.
One of the many reasons for the 9/11 planebombings was the tremendous value in misdirecting world and Arab priorities away from the repression by Arab governments of their Arab citizens. If the US had pursued a policy of energy independence after the 1973 embargo (itself a collusion between Arab governments and American oil companies), we the people of the US would have spent a lot less money on weapons, oil and diplomacy, not to mention lives. But that alternative would feed an economy of development, instead of the war machine that controls most governments and their media allies. If you want to be the latest to load the Jews into trains for some kind of relocation for their own good, your conscience deserves to review the history of treating people like cattle. Why not demand that your tax dollars accompany regime change of the intransigent warlords, Arafat and Sharon, who gain only from strife? Instead of feeding the insatiable leaders of the Arab world who have already struck devastating blows against the US, and who fan the flames of hunger for more?
--
make install -not war
What you call a right, I call a rationalization. I guess North Korea has the "right" now to start lighting off nukes on the United States, by your way of thinking.
BTW, I'm not even arguing whether Israel had the "right" to attack in '67. I only pointed out that Israel did not declare war or wait for its enemy to mobilize its air defenses. That is a sneak attack. There's no point in pretending that somehow Egypt was more ignoble in its attack in '73, because they didn't "warn" Israel they were going to retake their lands on a particular date.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
I'm not going to choose sides on this debate. I don't have the first hand knowledge and experience to make that judgment.
I don't know who struck first.
Strategically, Israel could have struck first on a religous holiday, to take advantage religous or patriotic sentiment. This has been suggested in James Bamford's book on the NSA, titled "Body of Secrets". It certainly wouldn't be the first time it has happened, or could have possibly happened - he also details how the US governement were planning to down one of their own planes, and blame it on Cuba, so they could then have an excuse to invade that country.
After a quick google search, here are two items worth reading
BAMFORD "LIBERTY" ACCOUNT REPUDIATED
Response to charges made in Secrecy News on July 17, 2001
I don't think this post should have been rated "5" informative, as that implies it is factual. It is probably opinion, with strong racism throughout.
Why did I post ? I FIND THE RACISM OFFENSIVE.
As they say, there are three sides to a story
Of course, there is likely to be a response to this post, consisting of
btw, I'm an Australian, my genetic backround is Anglo-Saxon and Keltic, but who cares ?. I don't give a fuck where you are from, or what religous beliefs you have, as long as you are a decent human being.
Yes, I've met both Jews and Arabs, and as indivuals, they were decent human beings. Neither am I going to blame them as individuals for crimes their cultures, populations or governments may or may not have committed.
Of course, feel free to have a go at me for using obscenities ... my mother would.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
>Panema in the 80's
Panama was NEVER an enemy of the US... they sold drugs when they were "friends". They just stopped sending the profits to CIA black ops, and then they became enemies.
Enemies of the United States are usually a matter of political convenience: from what country did the Sept 11 hijackers -- and their funding -- come from?
Was it Iraq? Or was it Saudi Arabia?
Which country has contributed money to the GW Bush election campaign via "multinational" oil companies?
You never hear this in the US "fair and balanced" supposedly "liberal media".
Initially the Isreali intel guys figured the Arabs would never be able to coordinate enough to take advantage of their numerical advantages.
But as Yom Kippur approached, the intel guys definitely knew something was up. They figured an attack was coming. They didnt know the hour. A double agent, who the Israeli's called "the in-law" told them it would be in the afternoon, when it was a few hours earlier.
I really still don't understand why Dayan told Meir to humor King Hussein, instead of listening to him. After all, she could have used the opportunity to call up the reserves, and it would have made them look even better, fewer Israeli casualties those first few days. And no-one would have to suffer through Dayans lament about the end of the third temple.
I guess Moshe Dayan figured he would scramble everyone after they were finished with the rites of Yom-Kippur.
I guess this is one of those times, when the military-intellegence guys relied too heavily on one intellegence asset (who was Nasser's In-Law I believe) and got bit for it.
Good quote, Doc. I've always liked it. But I believe we all start out good, or at least neutral with a tendency toward pacifism. Then someone kills half your family and spoils your whole day. Suddenly, what matters but the war machine?
That's the downward spiral that violence assures. That's why the rest of us, with our hope intact, have an obligation to drag the wounded back into humanity. Cruelty is contagious, as is compassion. When we hesitate, we offer the advantage to cruelty to get to us first. Anyone can claim an inheritance of vengance, but anyone who can justify making peace has a selfinterest in acting on that chance. It is a credit to all those who have, that we inside the US enjoy relative peace, and a debt we can repay by reinvesting it elsewhere.
--
make install -not war
can you set up a torrent again and post a link I would like to see this.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
"Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles."
In the mean time
GM Hybrid
Ford Hybrid
No.
Easy to second-guess the private minds of people who've been dead for generations. Hindsight shows the Jordanians to be almost as threatened by the PLO as the Israelis during that period, the early 1970s. But Dyan, so used to fighting Arabs for survival, might not yet have realized that King Hussein was his ally, what with the Egypt-Jordan military alliance of 1967 so current.
I was sad when Hussein died, although AFAIK his son, who succeeded him, has not made matters worse in the current disastrous context. Contrast that with Syria's succession from "President" (king) Hafez Assad to his son, who has heated up the war Syria wages from Lebanon on Israel through Hamas. It is specifically there that I believe Israel's military force, if useful at all, would best be threatened: an ultimatum to Syria to stop its terrorist army in Lebanon, or face military response against Syrian troops, cowardly hiding behind their terrorist servants. Although I deplore war, it is foolish denial to believe that the current war inside Israel is anything but, and that a war can be won by surrendering. It is only more foolhardy to believe that the war can be won by Israeli military action against Palestinian civilians, even as collateral damage in the military fight against Palestinian terrorists.
Force must be wound down over there. That must start with appropriate counteractions, like unpalatable but legal (and occasionally diplomatically productive) military counterbalances. And treatment of terrorism as crime, to be controlled by a selfinterested partnership of Israeli and Palestinian police. Once the appropriate parties are aligned, the polarization of all the people will have a chance to revert to the self preservation inherent in civil societies. Until then, there's only the downward spiral of violence.
--
make install -not war
It's natural to hate what we fear, and to fear what we don't understand. It's also natural for an open wound to get dirty, infected, gangrenous and even kill us with septic shock. As civilized humans, we also have the option to go to the root, and learn how to understand what we didn't. It's an alternative to fear which exterminates that entire path to death. And it's fun along the way. Not to mention the pleasure of inspiring those whose ignorance is fortified by blind faith, into joining the life of compassion and inclusion. This "god" scam has gone on long enough, keeping us separated with lies and crazy, fearmongering talk. We who know better can get us all past it when we come together, after facing our own selfdefeating shortcuts. Anger is an energy, but only love conquers all.
--
make install -not war
Proof of what?
All he's saying is that fifty year old military documents are being witheld by the government -- which is true. In fact, many documents are being held back. The FOIA has been weakened greatly since Bush took office, simply by the adminstration's outright refusal to release documents.
The only proof we have is that the government has documents which they are unwilling to release. The fact that we can't prove anything is exactly the point because we don't have the information to do so.
There's no conspiracy theory, because there's no information that a conspiracy exists, other than the suspicious reticence of the government. If you can hide all proof that your conspiracy exists, does to not exist anymore?
You're right to be skeptical of any conspiracy theory claims. But you're foolish to believe that no conspiracy exists because the only information that could prove or disprove it is in the guarded posession of those who would be involved in the conspiracy.
The FOIA is one of the greatest Acts in American history, IMHO. Information is the ultimate power, and that power should be held by the people. When the government witholds that power, you should be afraid.
The enemies of Democracy are
I'm glad someone recognizes that there's no such thing as a "liberal media". Some of these dopes are just so INSISTANT. If you try to explain things to them, they don't listen. It drives me nuts.
The media is too dumb/lazy to be liberal. They'd much rather just listen to whatever the Bush administration has to say and take at face value.
With the quick excuse thing, when the invisible Niger Uranium failed to turn up to line seemed to be "it's all about regime change" - but changing a military dictatorship into a military dictatorship doesn't sound so good either.
After 9/11 I thought it was good to see that the US did not act like a cut snake (eg. like bombing Libya after Iran organised blowing up an airliner) - but in the end some elements just reacted like a slow cut snake. Things will even out, those that created the mess will leave and become elder statesmen while someone else has to clean up the mess. Eventually, someone will actually go looking for Bin Laden, instead of pissing people off and giving him more allies. The great minds that gave you "freedom fries" need to be replaced by someone that can think - there must be some competant people in both parties.Good point, well made. The American dollar is like the Gold standard, and it is because of this unique status that the US economy has been able to get away with the huge amount of debt (etc) it currently owes. If (when?) OPEC switches to the Euro the US will be fucked but this will upset the global economy so much that it's not in anyone's interest for it to happen overnight)
Yes, after the Arab countries started the '67 war, which they lost badly. Hint: If you start a war and lose, your lands might wind up being occupied by an outside force.
Sneak attack? Who attacked first in the '67 conflict?
So the Israeli's should have sat around and waited for the Arabs to attack when they had a chance to destroy their Air Forces on the ground and take the initiative? Don't you think we would have blown the Japanese strike force steaming towards Pearl Harbor out of the water if we had detected it before it launched it's attack?
If I feel like you are going to attack me then I am legally justified in attacking you first to remove that threat. Assuming I can prove that I felt threatened then this is considered to be self-defense (at least in my state).
But then, I guess all the Arab armies surrounding Israel weren't a threat after all were they?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Why the defensiveness? Why the apologetic tone? Of course the headline is misleading, British intelligence believed there was some good probabilities, given the situation at the time, that the US was considering seizing the oil fields. But why apologize if indeed the Nixon Administration HAD seriously considered invasion if (as the article points out) the oil embargo was unreasonably prolonged and/or the Arab-Israeli conflict reignited into war?
Most of Slashdot's readership was not born in 1973, I think it's fair to say. And probably haven't even considered the impact of the 1973 oil embargo on the West, from a national security standpoint. As Carter would declare later in the decade, the use of oil as an economic weapon to harm the United States is the "moral equivalent of war." In the event of an intractible OPEC causing severe economic, and thus political, upheaval, it is in the interest of the United States, and any other nation, to take steps necessary to resolve the situation, by force if necessary.
In 1973, the oil embargo was extremely dangerous. Today, largely as a result of the 73 and 78 crises, the world has diversified its energy suppliers and this is far less of an issue. Oil is a fungible commodity, a lesson the Arabs have learned since. Saudi Arabia for instance, has publicly renounced the use of oil as an economic weapon, as have the Iranians. In hindsight, the embargo was folly, as the end result was a DECREASE in the market share of Middle East oil as an energy source. Today, the oil producing Gulf states need the West more than the West needs the Gulf. So no more embargos from OPEC.
Blockades have been considered acts of war since time immortal. During the Civil War Lincoln was reluctant to actually declare a blockade against the South because that would have implied that the South was actually a nation-state. We called the blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis a "Quarantine" and sought a FAS unanimous vote to made it "legal" (at least in the eyes of the world if not the letter of the law).
A blockade is not gunboat diplomacy. Putting an Aircraft Carrier (or in the old days a battleship or ship of the line) off somebodies coast is gunboat diplomacy. Moving a division to somebodies border is gunboat diplomacy. Stopping ships that belong to that nation (or firing on them/sinking them if they refuse to yield) and declaring to the World that you will not allow ships into or out of their ports is a blockade -- and an act of war.
The minute an act of war is committed by one nation upon another nation that nation is justified in taking whatever means are necessary to defend itself. Even the UN charter says that.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Such a bleak outlook.. Perhaps if you tried for a more positive look on things. What America needs right now is an upbeat agenda, a presidential candidate that doesn't make the other side look bad, but instead says that this is how he wants the country to be like, and what he would do to make it happen. That's what I seem to miss in presidential elections, not the dissing, but the visionaries, the ones who say, "I hope for a better tomorrow."
> Your post just proves trolls aren't doing much tonight.
It's Trollish New Year tonight.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Blockades have been considered acts of war since time immortal. During the Civil War Lincoln was reluctant to actually declare a blockade against the South because that would have implied that the South was actually a nation-state. We called the blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis a "Quarantine" and sought a FAS unanimous vote to made it "legal" (at least in the eyes of the world if not the letter of the law).
And therefore Cuba would have been justified to launch the nukes based in Cuba because the US conducted an act of war? (The blocade)
The minute an act of war is committed by one nation upon another nation that nation is justified in taking whatever means are necessary to defend itself. Even the UN charter says that.
Please produce the section in the UN charter that defines a blockade of a waterway that a country does not control as an act of war.
(Geez, you people are the kings of rationalization...)
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
> From the President's State of the Union Speech January 28, 2003.
"Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles."
And how much unbudgeted money did he spend on the Near East this year?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Unprovoked? Israel was occupying the Golan Heights and the Sinai.
Yes, after the Arab countries started the '67 war, which they lost badly. Hint: If you start a war and lose, your lands might wind up being occupied by an outside force.
Hint: If you insist on occupying land that you won in a war, you shouldn't be surprised that countries will organize attacks against you to take it back. Or are you suggesting Russia was being a warlike aggressor when they proceeded to conduct war after '43 to regain the territories taken from them?
But then, I guess all the Arab armies surrounding Israel weren't a threat after all were they?
Never my point. My point is that it is hypocrisy to characterize an opponent's "sneak" attack as ignoble, but your "sneak" attack as not ignoble. And its ridiculous to think one is historically entitled to land lost 2000 years ago, and yet consider property claims only 5 years ago as irrelevant.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Israel always repays its debt, although the US and Israeli budgets are structured to ensure that Israel stays current. I'd like to see an actual accounting. It would also be instructive to see an alternate budget for US troops stationed in the region, taking Israel's place in the American hegemony. BTW, if you think the terrorists will lose interest in our juicy country, especially considering how our terrorized reactions play right into their Arab (and other) nationalist fantasies, you are in real denial. Moreover, if you think the US tech economy would benefit from the loss of its trading and development partners in Israel, especially in Tel Aviv, you really need to learn even some basics about either technology or economics.
The real choice is not between investing in democratic partners for peace, and "alternative" (renewable) energy. The real choice is between investing in renewable energy, or the oil industry which includes the weapons industry, all of which are made of oil. Which means dropping the support of Arab tyrannies which repress their people to steal all the oil profits, while they direct attention and money at red herrings like the Palestinians who have been abandoned by every Arab country, except as propaganda.
--
make install -not war
Have you TRIED FOIA lately?
First off, Ashcroft has made it clear to all governmental agencies that if a FOIA request can be rejected for any reason, it will be rejected. Secondly, since the requester of the information has to PAY for the information that is being requested although there is no set amount per page, many places are getting around FOIA by charging exhorbitant fees ($125 a page, for example,) for requests.
-- Funksaw
"You realize that the dollar can be converted to Euros"
Good point. It's a shame that the dollar is worth less and less every day. I put this down to the lack of confidence in the current US administration, and the readjusting of the global economy - why is a highly qualified Indian programmer worh less than a medioce US one?
Um, no. We'd be in a successful nation just like today, as we have the spirit and the brains to innovate and create here, and find resources elsewhere. Whereas those in the Middle East, utterly dependant on the happenstance of having a lot of dead vegetation from millions of years ago beneath their otherwise rather arid land, would likely still be bickering and fighting amongst themselves today over which sect of that third religion is best and which petty tyrant should oppress them. Though the Jews, with their ingenuity and incredible perseverance and determination to succeed and prosper, would likely rule all of the Middle East instead of just their little toe-hold, as those Arab pseudo-nations wouldn't have had the windfall of oil to fund their pathetic militaries.
Remember Xenophon? 10,000 Greeks kicking the ass of the *huge* Persian military (if you call it that) at the height of its power? Remember Rome turning back a "mighty" Arab army with nothing but a consul and some bodyguards? Ever since the west encountered the Arab world, it's been kicking its pathetic ass. I'd think you people would be used to it by now.
You are aware that "multiple theaters" was standard US doctrine until very recently? That all these advisors were really saying was that the US cut back on the military a little too much during the 1990s?
Nuke the Russian tank divisions with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles while they're still in the process of occupying Finland. Provide military assistance to Sweden and make a stand in Norway and in the northernmost Sweden (for Kiruna and the other mines).
This is why I am amazed why our last two governments have been talking the public to accept that we must NATO for our safety's sake.
The owls are not what they seem
Luckily, standonguard.com has been taken offline since it outlined the Canadian takeover of the United States. Celine Dion was part of the second wave.
America is the dominant country and is making the same mistakes that us Europeans made when we were in control.
Not really. We are not trying to establish empire or colonies. We are also quite sensitive to the death and mistreatment of native populations. The modern US is quite different from old colonial Europe, and of course modern Europe is quite different as well.
Am I the only one who also notices that the UK has a central place, where all such information is "publically accessible".
Whereas the US has a law, where such information "can be made accessible if enough people ask for it"?
Am I the only one who sees a HUGE difference? Are all FOIA documents AUTOMATICALLY filed in the Library of Congress?
--
Disclaimers:
IANAL
IAC(I am Canadian, well sorta)
A muslim scholar that I know personally as a noble man (a rich consultant yet well-educated in Islam, preaches to people and help the poor) was arrested by Indonesian police for planning to do terrorism.
He was arrested by police staffs without uniform and without any warrant.
After interrogating and beating him for days and not able to proof their accusations (it keeps on changing), they just let him go. Not even with a single apology.
But I'm still happy for him, some just gone missing forever.
And this is happening a LOT in Indonesia nowadays, the Christian extrimists (I know there are a lot of peaceful Christians, but the radical ones are unfortunately have managed to secure some high places in Indonesian gov) in the police force are arresting local muslim figures with false accusations.
These only started to happen after the US gov pressured Megawati (our president) "to do something about the terrorists in Indonesia".
And what then the US gov, the human rights defender, have to say about these things? None, nada, zip, zilch.
And it's still going on.
And people are wondering why muslims are pissed off to the Americans ?
I worked in the Defence industry in the UK for a while, my favourite piece of classification was when one of our design specs was upgraded from its current level to a higher one because some big-wig felt it was now more important.
This meant we couldn't now read our design document or the comments on the document without being approved for the higher level of security. This cost us 2 months on the project, paid for by the taxpayer.
There is so much rubbish that is classified, for instance our change log used to be classified. The change log was the request NUMBERS only, no descriptions and a statement of its current status. Because the project had a high level of classification the log MUST have a high level as well.
The military does not make sense, and if you want REALLY bizarre security try working on a cross border defence project where you can't send your design docs without them being refered to the censor.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Which is why the US is also planing to invade Iran, Syria and Suadi next week. After all they could attempt to build Weapons of Mass Destruction. Best to enact a "regime change" and get rid of the possibility. Just to be safe. Right?
There was one notable exception, when the BBC broadcast the SAS killing terrorists in London on not-quite-live TV. It's about the earliest thing I can remember watching on the news, and they still have the footage on their site.
Ironically, the terrorists were probably backed by Iraq, the one and only incident when Saddam really did sponsor terrorism in the UK. But no-one mentions that because it occured back in 1980, when we were still arming him with chemical weapons.
That was at the end of a five day siege of the Iranian embassy in London. The World's - well Britain's - media were already camped across the road. It would have been impossible to take the embassy without them noticing.
Further, the embassy was full of civilian hostages. You couldn't possibly have stopped them blabbing.
"How did you get out?"
"Can't tell you, the SAS man said to keep it a secret... oh bugger."
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Never said it was, I'da let him have Kuwait first time around, let him piss all over isreal and S.A. and made friends with him to buy lotsa oil cheap.
Having just finished reading Said Aburish's biography of Saddam, it appears he intended to do just that. The CIA helped the Ba'ath party to achieve power, and the US (along with many other countries) armed Iraq during its fight with Iran. Given this past approval for his activities, Saddam hoped to gain US acceptance of his Kuwait occupation in return for guaranteeing USA oil requirements.
Chris
Can you find me the documents relating to the transfer of German Nazi criminals to USA after WWII? Can't find that anywhere...
How about several JFK documents (I'm not too sure about this)?
How about CIA involvement with Usama bin Laden in the 80's? Or is that too soon?
It's funny but YOU are probably more brainwashed by others who are sceptical...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
The Soviets had an extreme amount of armor in Europe during the cold war. The NATO bases around Europe would only be speed bumps for them, we had NOTHING conventional that would stop them. (after a lot of complaining about their military power in europe, they moved it to the other side of the Urals, where conscripts are maintaining it still)
As for nuking them in finland: Should they have nuked them earlier, while they were still in Soviet, thus instead starting WW3 themselves? Or should they have waited till Soviet had taken over another country, and nuke them there instead? It's not like they would go in and then pull back, sort of ruins the whole point.
"So unmerciful is life, that everything afterwards is too late."
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
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Of course, for all I know, that was the plan
That was Saddams "get out of jail" plan when the US failed to overlook the invasion of Kuwait. However, by that time Iraq was no longer at war with Iran, so Washington no longer saw Saddam as a bulwark against Iranian fundamentalism. By coming to assistance of Kuwait, the US could placate a worried Saudi regime and ensure their existing guarantor of Middle East oil.
Saddam felt the need to invade Kuwait because the Iraqi economy was bankrupt after the war with Iran. He believed that the other Arab nations owed him a debt of gratitude for defending them from the "Persian menace", and wanted to flex his military muscle to get something more than platitudes. Looks like he seriously moread the situation ...
pChris
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
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
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
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
It's ironic that the declassified documents talk about US plan to seize Middle East oil. Just last year, some consultant was presenting a similar plan to DoD... Now that USA carried out an outright invasion, I guess no need for covert plans anymore...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Britain is more liberal so it is to be expected that they would reveal more information. USA on the other hand is very conservative and tries to hide everything (yes, the Democratic Party is somewhat conservative too). USA hasn't implemented any liberal principles sine the Found Fathers (nearly all of them were radical liberals), and FDR (he was very leftish).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Not really. We are not trying to establish empire or colonies.
What about Iraq? A puppet regime with no popular support, backed by huge amounts of American military might.
We are also quite sensitive to the death and mistreatment of native populations
What, like the Palestinians? Or the the Iraqi Kurds (unless its using them as a stick to beat the Saddam regime with) - check out Hallabja, the 1988 VX gas attack and the Republican administrations attempts to ignore it.
Fuckwit.
Chris
These are the related documents released this week that I've found so far, though I'm still digging:
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office have reportedly held back all documents relating to the day of the coup, however. I assume they are waiting until Kissinger and other US parties who supported and assisted the coup die of old age, before these are released.
The overthrow of President Allende in Chile presented the Foreign Office with a refugee problem. "The usual fellow-travelling civil rights organisations will do their best to confuse the distinction [between] respected democratic socialists and undesirables further to the left," a department minute noted. "In view of the growth of terrorism in this country we really cannot knowingly risk admitting terrorists as refugees."
So calling inconvenient refugees "terrorists" is nothing new, e.g. abandoning thousands on the Chilean left to be murdered by the Pinochet regime, and slamming your doors to legitimate asylum seekers fleeing from "valued trading partners".
There's plenty of damaging information about Kissinger already in the public domain. See The Trial of Henry Kissinger, a book that makes the case for his indictment.
Try googling for Opereration Northwood, one that did get declassified. Basically, your gov. wanted to shoot down civilian planes and shipping to justify a pre-emtive invasion of Cuba. It went all the way up to Kennedy, who was the only one that thought it morally reprehensible, and stopped it.
Quote from the original document:
The sad thing is, this all sounds strangely familiar...
And remember, this is one of the few that did get declassified. God knows what else your country has done. Despite the image presented by Hollywood, the USA is one of the most morally reprehensible countries on the planet. Your self-denial and ignorance of the problem makes it even worse.
So, the USA needs Saudi oil. However, Iraq has all the oil they need. They just couldn't get to it due to the sanctions against Iraq.
So, remove Saddam, remove sanctions, remove dependance on Saudi oil. They aren't "stealing" the oil. They just want access to it.
Remove USA troops from Saudi, remove Bin Laden hatred of the USA. That's all the terrorists want; the removal of US troops from Saudi. Bin Laden says this in every one of his speaches, you know, the ones Bush won't let you hear.
With the US army now consolidating in Iraq, a former enemy of Saudi, US/terrorist relations should settle out some.
...and has been a killing ground since the birth of history and longer.
:-/
You mean humans were living there?
Why is it so shocking? As a British citizen I have no doubt that your country keeps a covert eye on us, and we do the same to you.
Not exactly true. In the US, there is a time limit on classification. I believe it is current 25 years for documents classified secret. If at the end of this time period a document will be automattically declassified, unless certain steps are taken to prevent this declassification.
Basically, at the 25 year mark it goes from a default of classified until to explicitly declassified, to a default of declassified, unless explicitly classified.
Of course, you must still go through a FOIA request to get access to the documents.
The Economics of Website Security
Saudia Arabia and Kuwait are both un-Democratic dictatorships. It's clear that we need to invade, topple their regimes, and liberate their people, (AND their oil, while we're at it).
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
The US is just as much empire building as Europe was, it's just acting the way the European colonial powers did when they tried to retain some semblance of power: By installing local puppet regimes instead of direct rule.
The British and US 'intellignece' organizations largely function as partners. The CIA isn't allowed to spy on US citizen domestically, so the CIA spies on UK citizens and MI5 (MI6?) spies on American citizens, when the two groups exchange data. Quite a cosy little relationship for two of the most prominent "Free and Open" democracies in the world.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
http://tinyurl.com/yutnt
Enjoy!
"The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll
We've had some bad moments, but 'most morally reprehensible' is incredibly ignorant. The ONE example you could come up with actually shows how incredibly good our system of government is (as is the oil example cited in the article above). Through a series of checks and balances these crazy ideas never saw the light of day. Just because a few people in goverment planned it, the proof is in action and both of these cases resulted in neither.
I can come up with thousands of instances of my government doing truly good works across the globe. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Have we had some really bad moments? You bet.. hell we've had some true monsters run this country for brief periods (Lyndon Johnson most recently). Yet, overall, our record is actually pretty damn good. We do look out for our own best interests most of the time (as does your country, whichever that is), but after all that is the job of government.
It's to bad that hating my country is so fashionable right now. We're actually a pretty good bunch. But people always need an enemy, and I guess we'll be it for awhile.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
You believe tha the US may invade whatever place they please if that place is using its sovereing power to decide what to do with their own natural resources?
I mean, just curious, it is always good to know if there are nutcases out there that believe the US owns the world and all its natural resources.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It was enough to watch Margaret Thatcher paying a visit to Pinochet during his detention in London, and the unashamed attempts of the current Labour goverment (Labour! a party founded by Socialists nonetheless) to avoid Pinochet's extradition to Spain by all means to understand the shameful support that the UK gave and received from the brutal dictator.
Shame on the UK for that (which I say with pain because I have been welcomed here as a resident).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
everyone is getting WAY to worked up about this. Its just some random document saying that the US may have has plans take take the oil feilds if it was needed. I don't understand why everyone get so worked up over everyone elses comments. It seems as if you have a "concervative idea(ie the one i mentioned above)" you get a crapload of angry replies saying your wrong. (OMB he said "concervative"!). The same goes for conspiracy theories. From my own experince it seems the people who usually support conspiracy theories are not satisfied with anything. If the US had needed to go to war for some reason, and decided not to. You'd all be posting about why the us should have gone to war. There is no point in arguing just for the sake of aposing whats already there.
God bless the british. God bless the us.
How come no one ever says "god bless everyone"?
More great quotations from Philip.
My personal favourite, said to the President of Nigeria, who greeted him in traditional African dress:
'You look like you're ready for bed!'
For those Fox News viewers out there...
The majority of Sept 11 Hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, there are demonstable links between Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda, but very few obvious links between Iraq and Al Qaeda...
However to quote the Travel Journal of Bob Harris reporting from Bali...
Add to that the research that showed that people who relied on Fox News were more likely to be wrong about current affairs and America is looking worse and worse... And before anyone starts I live in America and like it... mostly.
Z.
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
Bad example -- Russia was the country that was attacked , not the one that started the war in the first place (like the Arabs did). A better example would be something like: Would it have been ok for West Germany to launch a sneak attack against the Soviet Union to retake East Germany and Berlin? Would West Germany then have the right to be upset when the USSR completely steam rolled over them -- as the Arab countries were steam rolled over by Israel?
Never my point. My point is that it is hypocrisy to characterize an opponent's "sneak" attack as ignoble, but your "sneak" attack as not ignoble. And its ridiculous to think one is historically entitled to land lost 2000 years ago, and yet consider property claims only 5 years ago as irrelevant.
This has nothing to do with land. This has everything to do with defensive borders. The Israeli's returned the Sinai to Egypt after they signed a real Peace Treaty (hint: Cease fires aren't Peace Treaties). They would likely return the Golan Heights to Syria if Syria would sign a Peace Treaty and end their declared state of war.
Your ignoring the obvious fact that (with the exception of Egypt) all of the nations around Israel are technically still at war with her. If you were surrounded by countries that were at war with you -- countries with populations that wish to see you pushed back into the Ocean -- you'd be doing everything in your power to defend yourself as well. All the moreso if your collective history included several thousand years of obsession and genocide.
And as for the land lost 2,000 years ago argument that's really getting old. The simple fact of the matter is, whether it's right or wrong, Israel does exist. It's not going anywhere anytime soon. Until the Arabs learn to accept this simple fact there will be no peace. Should the Arab countries ever grow powerful enough to actually defeat Israel (who probably has nuclear weapons) they will have the US to contend with.
That's reality and it's not going to change anytime soon. Sorry if you can't bear to hear that.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
What about Iraq? ...
... A puppet regime with no popular support, backed by huge amounts of American military might.
Following in Germany and Japan's footsteps hopefully.
What regime? The government is still being setup. Well at a national level that is. In towns and villages the locals are often heavily involved.
No popular support? You confuse a small number of Baath party holdouts and jihadists with the public at large. The public may be suspicious, we have abandoned them before, but they are hopeful we will be keeping our promise to help clean up the mess and then leave.
Military might. Necessary to introduce stability. Again, Germany is a good example. I was surprised to find out that Nazi holdouts conducted sabotage and harassment through 1947, two years after their defeat.
What, like the Palestinians?
When has the US military conducted operations against them?
Or the the Iraqi Kurds (unless its using them as a stick to beat the Saddam regime with) - check out Hallabja, the 1988 VX gas attack and the Republican administrations attempts to ignore it.
The Iraqi's did that, not the US. No need to check it out, I'm old enough to remember it. Everyone was quite horiffied. That's when and why we stopped providing Saddam with anything he wanted and questioned the policy of arming Iraq to counterbalance Iran.
So what do you make of the fact that America has more military bases than any other power in history?
We have learned that big oceans on our borders do not necessarily make us safe. The bases tend to be part of mutual defense treaties. Also we leave when we are no longer wanted. Didn't the Philipines ask us to close some base and we did? Germany, Italy, Japan, and Korea for example have not asked us to do so. They actually consider US forces to be an integral part of their national defense.
Of course, and Africans as well. That is why I used the phrase "modern US". The original post was comparing old Europe to the current US. The "modern" qualification was appropriate.
You are a bit offtopic, the US did not invade and occupy. The fact remains that when the modern US military shows up it tends to help cleanup some mess and leave. Your tangent merely explores the cold war's communist/anticommunist conflict. The intent was to stop the spread of communism not to establish colonies. The US sometimes supported local groups that did not deserve support, however in many cases the opposition was merely local proxies of the Soviet Union. Much of what went on during the cold was the US and Soviet Union fighting using proxies. Again, true but offtopic. Empire and colonies was not our goal.
Hitler launched Barbarossa before finishing off England. (Hitler was also a military fool, but about that I'm not complaining.) If America hadn't been supplying the British with arms, food, oil, protection in the Western Atlantic, and so on, Britain would have been conquered by the Nazis before they turned their sights on Russia, and they would have no one standing in their way in North Africa so they would have seized the oil of the Middle East to help them. In other words, they very well might have won the war. Roosevelt pushed Lend-Lease through Congress and then made a very liberal interpretation of what he could use it for; he declared a "neutrality zone" that allowed the US Navy to hunt U-Boats; he banned arms sales to Germany. All these things helped the UK immensely and though it is impossible to know for sure, they may well have saved Britain from German occupation.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
And therefore Cuba would have been justified to launch the nukes based in Cuba because the US conducted an act of war? (The blocade)
Actually no our blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis was not an act of war. In the first place the blockade was limited to offensive weapons. We did not blockade ships leaving Cuban ports or ships attempting to enter Cuban ports with non-military (food, medicine, oil) cargos. In the second place we had every other nation in the entire Western Hemisphere (not to mention our NATO allies) backing us up. To quote from a website on the matter:
The last sentance of that paragraph is the most important. The Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba were a threat to the entire Western World -- not just the United States.
Likewise, Article 51 of the UN Charter states:
I would also quote from this website from your reading pleasure:
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Umm, Israel didn't wait for the Arabs to mobilize their defenses before making a "first strike" in '67? The Arab states had virtually their entire armies deployed on their border with Israel posed to attack. How much more mobilized could they have gotten? Gee, guess the Israelis should be punished for not calling them up and warning them that they were going to attempt to destroy the forces that were getting ready to destroy them.
Yeah the '67 war was a war of Israeli aggression. Whose fucking history book are you reading from? Even the Arab leaders of the time announced that they were going to "push the Zionist invaders back into the sea".
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Hell, I'm no four star General but if I was getting ready to start a war (as the Egyptians were) I'd already have my air defenses mobilized. The Egyptians have nobody to blame for the destruction of their Air Force but themselves. Just as we had nobody to blame for the destruction of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor but ourselves.
Heck, if the Arab states had been a little smarter about it, they probably win in '67, Israeli first-strike notwithstanding. "Let's leave all of our airplanes lined up in neat rows waiting to be bombed" Guess they should have taken the lesson from Pearl Harbor.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Oh, and I forgot to point out in my other reply to your post that there was already a declared state of war between the nations in question had already existed since 1948. Perhaps your history book didn't tell you that?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Look up the definition of ironic. This is not such a case.
Ironic is when someone claims a position that is opposite of his actions. Or something along those lines, I'm no english expert.
Most of the September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, but they certainly weren't funded by the Saudi government - Al Qaeda is committed to the overthrow of the Saudi royal family. If the US government avoids talking about Saudi Arabia it's not because their money supported the hijackers, but because their support for a fundamentalist dictatorship in the Middle East doesn't fit well with their supposed goal of democratizing the region.
There would be good effects and bad effects. OPEC would not be broken, and we would risk a nuclear war. However the USSR would not grow stronger either. Overall, ir may well be that the best decision in that situation would be not to invade.
"We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
I know. Most Yanks I've met have been good folks. In fact, all of them. However, the image your gov. puts forward is what a lot of folk see. And right now, it ain't too pretty unfortunately.
Once you dispose of Bush, we'll have a whole lot more respect for you! ;-)
How can you possibly not have your jaw touch the ground with this story? There is no other way to view the incident except, that the communism craziness was so crazy, everyone lost their minds, and no one could see that the whole plan is counter to the existance of the government to begin with. And getting it TO Kenndey, that final neighsayer of all plans, really means that the lower down numbskulls couldn't even see the complete ridiculousness of the plan. There is no "good way" to see this scenario.
No, I wouldn't say it was "pre-emtive" either, that's just the point of the plan. To dupe the public. Try a google for "Remember the Maine" for another similar example, wrt to the USA.
If you are trying to draw some sort of comparison between this and 9/11 you are showing either gross ignorance of current events, or paranoia.
Wasting my time replying to an AC, but thought this was worth mentioning.
No, I don't think 9/11 was one big conspiricy. That's just being silly. However, it's not the first time a government has used a completely unrelated incident as justification for another. That's my point.
You seldom see movies made about Americans who are good, courageous, and hard working.
Balls. Every second movie out of the US proclaims how great the US is. The good guy always wins etc.
The US has done some terrible things, particularly to Native Americans, but we aren't even close to the worst.
I never said you were the worse. That again is silly. However, most Americans cannot see their country doing wrong. Ever. That creates a serious problem.
Not when you consider the cost of switching.
Where is the widespread federally-run government sponsorship program for placing solar panels on rooftops and wind turbines on farmlands?
Why Federally run, rather than privately owned.
The power use of the US could be halved without affecting standard of living, if the government just got serious about it.
I doubt the government could do much about it without limiting power usage(which would be vastly unfair, as those in Nevada cannot have the air conditioning they need without going to jail, while those in california can). What's needed is for people to take initiative in not wasting power.
But since they're all getting rich off this overuse of power, why do it?
That may be one reason, however a larger reason is that it would be political suicide to place quotas on power usage, and saving power is pretty much only of benefit to those who are wasting it anyway.
This would also have the nice side-effect of getting rid of that nasty global warming thing, but then the US never believed in that anyway.
Global warming is pseudoscience anyway. It hasn't been conclusively shown that global warming is real, or that if it is real its caused by our activities. besides in the long run it won't have much effect even if we assume that global warming exists, since more CO2 gives an advantage to plants, making them more common, bringing the CO2 back to reasonable levels.
I could go on with tons of other examples where the US could make a large difference with relatively little effort: reducing use of polluting but replaceable chemicals in production (something the EU is getting serious about now),
It has a large cost, and we don't know for sure thats better for the environment. For instance, NiCd batteries were hyped as environmentally friendly for a while, before it was realized that they cause ground pollution.
reducing use of weapons which activate even after the end of war (landmines, for example),
I agree with you, however what would be better is reducing the use of wars.
halting the worldwide decrease in biodiversity by engineering trade barriers which promote environmentally conscious trading partners,
But this prevents both of us from getting the mutual advantage from trade that is arguably more beneficial as a whole than the benefit to the environment. Also, it may not work, as other nations will resell stuff to them at a slight markup, which may be smaller than the cost of environmental friendliness.
reducing poverty by giving third world countries a real chance in the world trading community, and so on...
I agree with you on this one, but doesn't it contradict your previous statement?
but if the US wants to be the leader of the free world, they should act like one, and actually make life better for the rest of us.
By restricting trade and by forcing people to be environmentally friendly, and to pay for research on alternative fuels? It sure sounds free.
The resentment against the US over in Europe (where I live) flows not so much from the US grabbing power, but from the US grabbing power and using it only for their own protectionist benefit. They can rule the world all they want, but only if they make it a better place.
That will never happen; there is too much potential for abuse, that it will be abused; It's human nature. The correct approach is to limit power as much as possible.
"We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
Your attitude is betrayed by your spurious reference to the _Exodus_ movie: military and political history is just a medium for you to distort the events of Israeli defense into agression. There is no "bottom line", there's just a series of wars that leave Israel defending its existence from misleading Arab governments, and the opportunistic, myopic spin that would have the Arabs drive Israelis into the sea.
As is universally recognized in the community of those who understand the distinction between legal and illegal acts of war, the 1967 war was precipitated by the Egyptian surprise naval blocade of Israel, to which Israel responded decisively. Hardly a "sneak attack" when the war was begun with a traditional strike by Egypt on Israel, in conjunction with a public war treaty among the other Arab countries surrounding Israel. Only a contortionist with an agenda could reverse the blame here.
The 1973 attack was despicable, as it was launched not to "retake" the buffer territory that Israel captured, but as yet another attempt to proactively destroy the country. On a surprise day, the holiest day each year when Israelis are proscribed from all work, including military. And as usual, the attack targeted Israeli civilians, also busy praying. When Israel won the war against the odds, without attacking civilian targets while causing extreme damage, they did not use their advantage to claim more territory than necessary to remove the disadvantages that emboldened the attacking Arab countries. And when a real peace treaty was signed with Egypt, that buffer territory was returned immediately. Rather than your strawman "political theory" of daring Arabs to cross some line, the buffer territory was taken in an effort to keep Arab troops *away* from the line. And it worked for 5 years, until a momentary alliance among the Arab governments, usually at each others throats for territory, offered a slim chance for victory in combination with a sneak attack.
How do you feel about the propriety of the subsequent oil embargo? Or its failure, due to Arab government greed? Or the unbroken history of internal repression, mass murder and tyranny in those Arab countries, as they attack Israel and the US with anything possible, until an actual risk of losing something permanent is in the equation?
By your own values (which I don't share) the Arabs "deserved" the destruction of their militaries and border territories in 1967 and 1973, because they attacked first to start a war, which Israel could fight only for its life. Israel, by your values, was entitled to actually conquer the attacking countries, using its unchallenged military power in the wake of their decisive victories. But it didn't. If there's a political theory at work here, it's that a chance at peace is more valuable than mere victory.
One way to end the conflict in the Middle East, at least in its Arab/Israel version, is to withdraw US support for Israel. When Arab countries destroy Israel, by definition the conflict will be over. Of course, a new conflict will immediately arise. First, among the Arab countries which occupy the territory. Next, between the Palestinians and their new Arab overlords, as the Israeli democracy gives way to expanded Arab tyrannies. Then, as these conflicts spread, among other countries which get sucked in, particularly as the Saudis and Iranians take their battle for Muslim brainwashing franchise dominance from the madrassas to the streets (already underway in all the countries mentioned). Watch as Pakistan heats up in the conflict, probably dragging India in. When that nuclear keg explodes, watch China to get in, and Russia, and everybody else. Until there's nobody left.
There are so many permutations of these paths to doomsday, who can say which one we'd actually take. Meanwhile, when American policy favors peace over the military/oil industry, with diplomats running the show rather than arms dealers, we'll have a shot at resolution. Arafat, Assad, Sharon, Khameni, Mubharak, El Saud, and the rest of the
--
make install -not war
i'm sure i'm not the only one to have had brand name cd players / midi systems that stopped reading cd's after a couple of years, (probably because the lens has become dirty/oily).
as dvd players use the same technology, it will probably be this that gets them before any of the electronics has a chance to fail.
while the same also applys to no-name brands you haven't paid $$$'s more for something with a couple of extra features and a better logo.
strangley i also know of some old, well used players that seem to refuse to fail.
This UID is 7651 digits too high to subjectively infer IQ from.
It would be MI6, MI5 is domestic counter-intelligence and security (hah).
What untenable position have I taken? I'm not the one that criticized Egypt and Syria for their surprise attack in '73. I criticized them for the motives behind the surprise attack (extermination of the Jewish race). I also pointed out that it is hypocrisy to say that Israel "deserved" it because "they started the war of aggression in '67" when in fact the '67 war was started by the Arab powers and their posturing leaders who wanted to "drive the Zionist bastards back into the sea".
My position is many things -- pro-American, pro-Israeli, pro-Freedom but it's not untenable by any stretch of the imagination.
And I didn't blame Egypt for not being "prepared" for the sneak attack. I'm quite glad they weren't -- otherwise the map in the middle east might look very different. I guess it's a good thing that the Arabs don't know anything about modern warfare.
Lest you think I'm a hypocrite I don't frown on sneak attacks -- if you are going to war with somebody why warn them that it's coming? For all the finger-pointing at Egypt and Syria for the "sneak-attack" in '73 the Israelis had more then enough warning that it was coming. They just choose not to listen to the signs (as we did before Pearl Harbor) -- they nearly paid the price for it. Had the Mossad done it's job (or had the political leadership listened to it) the Arab armies would have been slaughtered at the border and the war wouldn't even have been a contest.
I do frown on racist Arab leaders that refuse to accept that Israel has the basic right to exist -- and then refuse to accept their complete and utter defeats at the hands of the IDF. They should count themselves lucky that Israel isn't an aggressive warlike state otherwise the Star of David would probably be flying over Cario and Damascus right now. Up until the 1950s-60s that's typically what happened to states that started wars and then lost. In any event it's a moot point nowadays -- Israel has nuclear weapons and isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Until the Arabs learn to accept this simple fact of reality they will continue to live under the boot of the IDF. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
I see many things but I see no self-contradiction in any of my statements. Feel free to point any out -- or are you incapable of doing anything other then saying "silly shakrai" and posting as AC?
silly shakrai
Silly Anonymous Coward.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
long-established Brit attitude that "this is Britain, so why in hell can't those thick Irish not acknowledge it!?" It happens that a 1980 study ordered by the Crown Privy Council (eight members of Govt and Parliament who advise the queen on long-term policy matters) was produced by a task force of several British military and MI6 intelligence agencies, and in the end, the final details were assembled personally by the prime minister -- Maggie Thatcher. She passed it along to the queen and the Privy Council one copy each for the members and one for the queen). The key "advisory" was that the Brits Army could not defeat the IRA, and that the IRA couldn't deat the BA ... A summary was released by Thatcher's press office. But two months later the IRA published the entire document (of about 40 pages, if I recall)! Seems they had a friend (if not a mole) right there in the Privy Council, or in Thatcher's own office! Happens that all the members of Parliament were pissed off that they were reading a document in the public press AFTER the IRA had
gotten hands on it weeks before. The Brits had the same kind of problem in Palestine, with Israelis and Palestinians each having moles operating within British HQs (which at the time was the King David Hotel -- later blown to bits by the Irgun Zeva'i Le'umi (Jewish saboteurs). In Dublin, 1921, the IRA assassinanted 21 British agents in one nite after infiltrating MI5 there. And, throughout the Cold War, while the Russians were able to plant many agents in all Western capitals, they hardly had reason to plant any in London because there were so many Brits anxious to pass along nuclear and military intelligence to Moscow, free of charge ... So the Brits have long suffered from very weak counter-intelligence -- while themselves being very successful in penetrating enemy intel services. Nothing much has changed over the past 100 years in the under-cover business!
PS: On the website there's a 75,000-word file (originally issued by the US State Dept, 17 years after end of WWII) on so-called Irish neutrality during WWII, the details clearly showing it to be a sham, that in exchange for wheat, medical supplies and military signal equipment (that would enable networking with the Brits for the defence of "the republic" against any German landing threats) the Dublin gov't agreed to deny any rights to German flight or naval crews that entered Irish air- or water-spaces, whie allowing Allied flights and ships to pass along en route to their bases, or to have a/craft and ships repairs to allow them to get back to their bases. The whole deal was smoke and mirrors. But even after reading the 75,000 words, I guarantee that 95% of visitors will continue to believe that "Irish neutrality" or "collaboration with the Nazis" was official policy, and respected by the US and London.
The light at the end of the tunnel is a train.