Secret Gov't Documents Will be Declassified 12/31

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Secret Gov't Documents Will be Declassified 12/31

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday December 28, 2006 @12:16AM from the but-not-a-minute-earlier dept.

mozzwald writes "This New Year's Eve, at midnight on the dot, hundreds of millions of pages of U.S. government secrets will be revealed. Or at least they'll no longer be official secrets — it may actually take months or more for the National Archives and Records Administration to make those pages available for public consumption."

301 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Can't wait... by bogaboga · 2006-12-28 00:20 · Score: 0, Troll

Can't wait 25 years to know how my president mislead us into this Iraq quagmire. We just lost 100 people so far this month and counting! Very sad indeed. More American lives have now been lost in Iraq as compared to those that died on 9/11.
1. Re:Can't wait... by Threni · 2006-12-28 00:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  > Can't wait 25 years to know how my president mislead us into this Iraq quagmire. We just lost 100 people so far this month and
  > counting! Very sad indeed. More American lives have now been lost in Iraq as compared to those that died on 9/11.
  
  I don't know what you expect to find. There's nothing unique about the US intervention in Iraq - it's for exactly the same reasons as all the other meddling in other countries affairs going back through most of the 20th century. No cover ups or conspiracy theories are required - it's been taking place quite openly. You might want to start with `manufacturing consent` or `hegemony or survival` by Noam Chomsky for what's been going on, and how the a free media like that in the US handles it.
2. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 00:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What about hundreds of Iraqi people's lives that were lost? That doesn't count eh?
3. Re:Can't wait... by fat32 · 2006-12-28 00:47 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Q: What's the difference between a clueless noob and a Slashdot moderator?
  
  A: A clueless noob watches FOXNews 24/7. A Slashdot moderator watches FOXNews by day, and MSNBC by night.
  
  Q: What's the difference between Noam Chomsky and Che Guevarra?
  
  A: Che Guevarra wasn't a pompous asshole.
  
  Q: What's the difference between Noam Chomsky's analysis of 9/11 and George Bush's analysis of 9/11?
  
  A: Nothing.
4. Re:Can't wait... by Timesprout · 2006-12-28 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Firstly there wont be a lot of documentation, why would you document crap you just make up about WMD and Al Quaida links although perhaps the source of the hilarious and utterly incompetent Nigerian yellow cake forgeries might emerge.
  
  Secondly, and most importantly, no one will care. In 2002 the documents which showed the US had basically been knowingly supplying Sadam with materials to develop chemical weapons (yes Mr Rumsfeld you) emerged and no one batted an eyelid.
  
  --
  Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
  What truth?
  There is no dupe
5. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 00:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Hundreds? Try hundreds of thousands.
6. Re:Can't wait... by oggiejnr · 2006-12-28 00:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You would be suprised about the anount of documentation. If people lower down in the food chain want to cover themselves the first thing they do is put it in writing. Take the Suez Crisis for example. There is clearly documentation to show that the British used sexed up intelligence to manufacture a war against Egypt to reclaim Suez. If documentation exists to show this then I wouldn't be at all suprised if the same is true of Iraq
7. Re:Can't wait... by Denial93 · 2006-12-28 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, "25 years ago" includes the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War, which the US were involved in to an extent unclear as of yet. So that could certainly shed some light on the history of US involvement in Iraq. However, since that information heavily involves George Bush senior, I very much doubt it will actually see light.
  
  --
  blow your mind already
8. Re:Can't wait... by Malc · 2006-12-28 01:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "More American lives have now been lost in Iraq as compared to those that died on 9/11."
  
  Why exactly did you draw that comparison? They're two unrelated events. Why not say: more American lives have been lost in Iraq than in Pearl Harbor? Even if 10,000 lives had been lost on 9/11, there would still be no justification for attacking Iraq based on it, and thus no bench mark to compare against.
9. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 01:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah, but the point is no one will care.
  
  We don't need to open secret archives to know the Iraq war was a bunch of bullshit but no one really cares.
10. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  You don't mention the Iraqi lives that have been lost or destroyed since the US-led invasion of Iraq. Each of those lives is equally valuable. Secondly, you mention that the US deaths are now greater than 9/11 deaths, which may be an interesting constrast in it's own right however it's also prudent to recollect that the pretense for US-led-invasion of Iraq was WMN - not a relationship with 9/11.
  
  Perhaps you're simply taking the same line as this guy:
  
  "We don't do body counts"
  
  General Tommy Franks, US Central Command
11. Re:Can't wait... by Timesprout · 2006-12-28 01:04 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  You point is taken, and I agree is usually the case. However you are overlooking the stunning arrogance and self deluded incompetence of the Bush administration. These are people who believe the world is the way they say it is and not the way reality dictates. When they said Iraq had WMD that was enough for it to be true and explains why no supporting evidence was needed or produced and in all likelyhood does not currrently exist in reality of forgery.
  
  --
  Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
  What truth?
  There is no dupe
12. Re:Can't wait... by Charcharodon · 2006-12-28 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  On average 120 Americans were killed just yesterday. Men, women, the young, the old, hell even family pets. There is no grand government conspiracy there, it's called the automobile.
  Let's not just be US snobs, in the time it took me to bang this short reply out 10 people died globaly due to the dreaded four wheeled machine of death. Where is the outrage? Where is the horror?
  Sure war is a terrible thing, but try to get a little perspective here folks.
13. Re:Can't wait... by stewbacca · 2006-12-28 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  EVERY classified document produced by the US Government is subject to a declassification timeline, usually much sooner than this magical 25 year timeline. Only certain documents are afforded an exemption from declassification guidelines, and only when declassification would reveal sources, methods, or plans. Any Private in Army Intelligence knows this, so why can't the media get it right?
  If you all want open access to intel sources, great: just don't expect any security in exchange.
14. Re:Can't wait... by stewbacca · 2006-12-28 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Here is a source for my information, Executive Order 12958, Classified National Security Information, April 17, 1995: http://www.dss.mil/seclib/eo12958.htm
15. Re:Can't wait... by Iron+(III)+Chloride · 2006-12-28 01:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's true that automobile deaths are extremely prevalent, but they are usually more the result of 1) poor training or 2) excessive alcohol consumption or 3) road rage. It's something that cannot be easily dealt with because it concerns the whole of society. People will always get angry, people will always get drunk, and people will always get mad. It's part of human nature that probably is very hard, if not impossible, to change. It's unlike racism, where you have one clearly defined ethnic group targeting another. Oh, and accidents may also happen due to carelessness, which cannot be avoided.
  
  On the other hand, the war is a single product of a single administration and the entire US public's attitudes (apathy, ignorance?) towards a single issue. It's much more preventable; it's much more treatable. Thus, naturally we'll be more easily angered about a more preventable bad decision by the administration and its incompetence and arrogance. Perspective is much less the issue here as opposed to the ability to succeed.
  
  -FeCl3
  
  --
  Cogito, ergo sum, fosho!
16. Re:Can't wait... by Charcharodon · 2006-12-28 01:28 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  There was plenty of justification for attacking Iraq.
  The president said "Hey let's attack Iraq" and Congress said "America!...Fuck Yea!" and then Congress said to Americans "Hey let's attack Iraq" and they said "America!...Fuck Yea!" and that's all there is to it.
  There are no bench-marks or justfications for war just details and more importantly the willingness to goto war.
17. Re:Can't wait... by (A)*(B)!0_- · 2006-12-28 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  Saddam Hussein was in non-compliance with the ceasefire of the first Gulf War; his invasion of Kuwait and subsequent behavior was the justification for going into the country. Do you believe that Clinton was justified in launching missile attacks against Baghdad?
18. Re:Can't wait... by WindBourne · 2006-12-28 01:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Nothing of interest will be there. The interesting info would be in Reagan's term. But just before the info was to be release, W. did an executive order that allows a president or their heir or a current admin to redact any info that they think would damage their reputation. Hopefully the next president will have some morals and allow us none people to see exactly what what past presidents have been and done. That should include ALL of the reagan info including his irangate as well as his work in having Iran hold our hostages before the election and his dealings with Sadaam as well as OBL.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
19. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  You might want to start with `manufacturing consent` or `hegemony or survival` by Noam Chomsky for what's been going on, and how the a free media like that in the US handles it.
  
  While I agree with your general sentiment, you need to find somebody to cite that's not quite the anti-Semitic socialist crackpot.
  
  Yes, Chomsky's a professor of linguistics. Period. It would appear that he makes the same mistake many of the Phd's that I work with do, which is that somehow he thinks his points on other topics are more valid than the rest of us. No dice.
20. Re:Can't wait... by TheNinjaroach · 2006-12-28 01:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Why exactly did you draw that comparison? They're two unrelated events.
  
  Those two events are closely related. Nobody would have supported our "War on Terror" or the invasion of Iraq had we not been attacked on 9/11.
  
  --
  I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
21. Re:Can't wait... by baldass_newbie · 2006-12-28 02:00 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Yes, Chomsky's a professor of linguistics.
  
  And yet he only speaks one language. How funny is that?
  
  --
  The opposite of progress is congress
22. Re:Can't wait... by baldass_newbie · 2006-12-28 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  the invasion of Iraq had we not been attacked on 9/11.
  
  Uh, we invaded Iraq about a decade before 9/11. Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire and we resumed hostilities like we did in 1998 using the exact same intelligence.
  
  --
  The opposite of progress is congress
23. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  Here's a little perspective. There are approximately 140,000 US troops in Iraq. If 100 of them were killed in December, that's about 0.071% killed. The US population is now around 300 million. If the same percentage of US population were killed in December it would be around 214,000 people killed. And of course we're not counting Iraqi casualties.
24. Re:Can't wait... by mathmetalmike · 2006-12-28 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Can't wait 25 years to know how my president mislead us into this Iraq quagmire. We just lost 100 people so far this month and counting! Very sad indeed. More American lives have now been lost in Iraq as compared to those that died on 9/11. Are you one of those left wing nuts that thinks Bush blew up the towers too??? We all had the same information on the WMDs so lets not go blaming one person for an entire goverments mistakes! The left and the right had the same info and they ALL voted to go to iraq. The information was wrong,.. thats all there is. And no, the number of lives lost isnt "many more" then those who died on 9-11. The tally on American troops who have died PROTECTING this country from those religous nutjobs who want to come here and kill YOU and me, its about the same now... just under 3000. No one said boo in WWII when 17,000 died in a few months... it was for the greater good, it was understood that we had to be there. But these days its all bleeding hearts afraid to die for something, like love of country and family.... and o so sad and wrong when someone else does! Its time to rethink what you have been thinking, IF you ever thought of it for yourself. If you change the way you see things.... the things you see will change.
25. Re:Can't wait... by Charcharodon · 2006-12-28 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter what I believe.
  All that is required for anything is willingness and maybe ability, justifactions be damned. Justifications are the details we use to paint a pretty picture we paint for ourselves to make events appear moral or imoral, but since there are no such thing as morals, only things we are willing or unwilling to do, we end up right back where we started.
  My whole point was to make fun of people who go on and on about how the President missled everyone, which was horseshit. They all went along with it because they were more than willing and that's exactly how wars begin.
  Personally I think the war in Iraq is a big mess at the moment. Hussein kept a lid on the multiple groups by using heavy handed tactics. If that is what is going to be required to keep peace there, then we should just split up the country along factions and give the pieces to the neighboring countries that have similar factions and get the hell out. It either that or we are going to have to pick one of the three sides then wipe out the other two. Based on precidence in other countries in the middle east we are going to be there for decades if we think we can hold onto the situation until things calm down. The only other option is to let Hussein go back into power and let the Iraqi's have the kind of leader they seem to deserve/need.
  But what the fuck do I know? I'm not from Iraq or the Middle East.
26. Re:Can't wait... by Joe+Snipe · 2006-12-28 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  It's true that automobile deaths are extremely prevalent, but they are usually more the result of 1) poor training or 2) excessive alcohol consumption or 3) road rage.
  
  I can reduce your causes to 1) communication problems 2)Poor Judgment Faculties 3) Lack of foresight, and planning
  Which can further be reduced to an inability to clearly see the present situation, compare it to the past, and apply said information toward future goals. All of humanities issues can be attributed to these three things, whether or not it involves someones death. That we have an "administration to blame", doesn't fix anything; unfortunately it makes it easier to dismiss the problem by pointing to a scapegoat. The GP was correct in that we need perspective, but it should be a perspective of erudition, not apathy.
  
  --
  Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
27. Re:Can't wait... by SnapShot · 2006-12-28 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  While technically the rule for keeping documents secret is if they would reveal sources, methods, or plans. In reality -- and I doubt I'm being too cynical here -- the real criteria is if they will embarass the anyone who has friends in government.
  
  --
  Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
28. Re:Can't wait... by Guuge · 2006-12-28 02:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It makes perfect sense to compare two deadly events by counting deaths. For example, the Asian tsunami was far deadlier than hurricane Katrina. That doesn't make hurricane Katrina justified, but it does give one some perspective.
  In this case, it's clear that Bush is deadlier to Americans than Osama bin Laden. The comparison suggests that we reevaluate our priorities.
29. Re:Can't wait... by Lost+Penguin · 2006-12-28 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  The truth is, Bush had rights to attack any nation involved in 9-11.
  His lie to Congress and the American people was that Iraq was behind 9-11.
  These lies continue to this day.
  
  Sadam killed terrorists in Iraq
  
  --
  I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
30. Re:Can't wait... by Jeremy+Erwin · 2006-12-28 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Chomsky's a professor of linguistics. Period.
  
  You like sticking people into nice little labeled cubbyholes, don't you?
  this 1972 article reprinted from the New York Review of Books, should go some way towards explaining what linguistics are, and Chomsky's reputation in the field.
  
  And if linguistics still sounds rather esoteric, and inapplicable to, other things, say, Artificial Intelligence, what of it? Would he be more qualified to speak of East Timor if he taught political science or worked for Fox News?
31. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  The left and the right had the same info and they ALL voted to go to iraq.
  
  I didn't. 6000 others in my hometown didn't either, I know because on Feb 15, 2003 we were in the street protesting to prevent this unjustifiable invasion. About 13 million other people all over the world joined us, for some cities it was the largest protest event in their entire history.
  
  I also remember that these protests were instrumental in the US going back to the UN for a last-ditch attempt at international legitimacy, and that all of this was reported even in the US media.
  
  If you think there was clear consensus in going into Iraq, you were deluded.
32. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, can't wait to find out about all the perfidy of the Carter administration. That will be the major eye opener. Too bad Clinton's administration isn't covered in this release.
33. Re:Can't wait... by fuzzix · 2006-12-28 03:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes, Chomsky's a professor of linguistics.
  
  Oh, well that completely excludes him from being able to comment on the semantics and euphemisms used by the mass media to mask the truth.
34. Re:Can't wait... by InThane · 2006-12-28 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  The kind of people who do this kind of documentation aren't the ones who came in with the administration - they're the rank and file of the federal bureaucracy, who predated the administration, and the administration can't easily get rid of them due to union laws.
  
  Those are the guys who write the memos that embarrass the heads of state.
  
  --
  InThane
35. Re:Can't wait... by Heikell · 2006-12-28 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  You forget that he supposedly had intelligence that supported his cause against Iraq which I have yet to see any of.
36. Re:Can't wait... by (A)*(B)!0_- · 2006-12-28 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, I see; I misunderstood your point.
  I do disagree with you though. Ignoring this current situation for the moment and to use your language, the people of the United States were willing to escalate the action in Vietnam based on their understanding of the events in the Gulf of Tonkin that led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; because of that event, they were willing - without it, they would probably have been unwilling. That justification is the determining factor in what someone is willing to do.
37. Re:Can't wait... by SQL+Error · 2006-12-28 03:23 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Not funny at all to thousands of working linguists who believe that Chomsky has set the field back by decades.
  
  Not funny when you consider that Chomsky's so-called "Universal Grammar" looks just like English.
  
  Not funny when you consider that Chomsky's reputation as a thinker comes entirely from his work in linguistics, when that work is, at best, junk.
38. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Fox News already declared that Carter is the devil. We don't need any documents written by stuffy intellectual elites.
39. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, it means being in Iraq is deadlier to Americans than Osama bin Laden.
  
  Your logic is broken. Demonizing your enemy doesn't help anything.
40. Re:Can't wait... by Threni · 2006-12-28 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'm also puzzled as to how a Jew can be deemed anti-semitic.
41. Re:Can't wait... by dapsychous · 2006-12-28 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  That's great and all, but as another has said further down the page, the events are unrelated and therefore, it is not acceptable to use one as a benchmark for the other.
  
  Besides, 3000+ for an entire military action (notice the lack of the word 'war') is really not that bad. Modern technology has greatly increased the survivability of our troops. Compare 3000+ for an entire action, with anywhere from 20,000+ to 60,000+ per day during the civil war.
  
  Now, I'm not trying to justify this particular action. I was against it from the start, and when Shrub was first elected, I jokingly said that we'd probably be going after Iraq. Woe that I couldn't see the future. That being said, I do believe that, since we've gotten mixed up in this mess, we need to see it through until Iraq says, "Get the hell out, already" (which in all hope will be soon).
  
  Just my 37.5 cents (inflation, you know)
42. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Carter's stuff was out back in 2000. He is well known. There was very little ethical issues with the carter admin. In addition, he is the most underappreciated president of the last 60 years (as well as bush I). It was Carter's policies that brought back the economy that Nixon and Ford had killed so badly. Ever wonder why the economy came back to quickly in the early 80's? That was due to the deregulation of the airlines and oil/gas. It had NOTHING to do with Reagan. As to Clinton, well, he will be interesting. Overall, his lack of ethical issues is personal (of course, I would guess that Hillary had no issues with it). I suspect that overall we will find little issues with his professional ethics (as opposed to both Reagan and Bush II who are about the most corrupt and least intelligent presidents of the last 100 years).
43. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  He isn't anti-semite just opposes Israel/zionism.
44. Re:Can't wait... by Guuge · 2006-12-28 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  No one said boo in WWII when 17,000 died in a few months
  
  Actually, people were extremely upset in the months after WWII began. Hitler claimed that the invasion of Poland was an act of self-preservation but everyone knew that he really wanted to expand his dominion. In the end, WWII was a tremendous disaster. The death toll was huge and it didn't get Hitler anything but an early grave. I'm not sure I'd put even the Iraq War in the same category of disaster as WWII.
45. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, and "bread is deadly" right?
  
  You are suffering from enormous logic fallacies. Will leave it up to you to research "which ones"...
46. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  Gee golly! I can die in the name of love for my country/family by preemptively attacking a sovereign nation, killing its people, and forcibly converting them to our way of life? Where do I sign up for this ultimate act of terrorism^Wpatriotism!
47. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  Well said. I joined and didn't give a rat's ass if I died doing what I believed in, I didn't however. I would like to see the spouting LIBs go over to Iraq and walk down the street with a peace sign and see how many come out alive. If they truly believe in peace then they should be willing to sacrifice their life for it.
48. Re:Can't wait... by dbcad7 · 2006-12-28 03:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  So religious nutjobs want to come here and kill me, and the best solution is for us to send people over there to kill them first... I see.
  I served in the Army. I was ready to defend my country. I am thankful, that I was not in the military when this all went down, because it's a mistake and wrong. To perpetuate it is even more wrong.
  If a cop was given information that a van was stolen, sure he has a right to stop it and arrest the people in it. When it is determined that it ISN'T stolen, then you say oop's sorry, you don't seize the van and keep the passengers in jail. Yes the passengers and the driver are going to be pissed, but to keep fucking with them is not going to fix the mistake. The continuing problem with this whole thing is that people REFUSE to believe that we can make a mistake... and be wrong ?, just never happen. It's like a driver going down a road reufusing to admit he's lost.
  But everyone should have expected this. When Bush debated Kerry and was asked "What mistakes have you made ?" He couldn't think of a thing. Did he not understand the question ? or the concept of being wrong ?
  
  --
  waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
49. Re:Can't wait... by slughead · 2006-12-28 03:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What about hundreds of Iraqi people's lives that were lost? That doesn't count eh?
  
  How many would Saddam have killed if he'd remained in power?
  
  He had gassed his own people, killing far more than have died in this current 'war'. The Iraq/Iran war was so horrendous it was almost like WWI was in Europe, only with more effective weaponry including but not limited to--yep, you guessed it--chemical weapons. Iran had some soldiers whose job it was to walk, unarmed and unequipped, over land mines to clear them out for armed personnel.
  
  I doubt if you're going by strict numbers, you can say that more lives have been lost as a result of removing Saddam from power in this way than to leave him in power.
  
  Unless, of course, we bail out of Iraq. In that case, there will probably be a civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands more.
  
  If you only care about American lives, nobody disagrees that more would have been spared if the US had stayed out (in the short term, at least).
  
  I was against the invasion, but that's because I don't think it's worth a single American life to help people who are not among our own, unless it's of extreme strategic significance (obviously if Iraq had WMD to give to terrorists to kill us with, this would qualify).
  
  Moreover, I doubt Americans have the attention span nor the understanding of geopolitics to support this 'police action' as is needed to prevent a civil war, and I think we WILL bail out either after the 2008 or 2010 elections (in the US). Therefore, even from a compassionate perspective, this was a mistake; not because we can't win, but because the American people don't have the testicular fortitude anymore to do what is necessary to win.
  
  --
  Latewire
50. Re:Can't wait... by El+Torico · 2006-12-28 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Funny how you mention the Gulf of Tonkin; I expect a similar incident to soon take place in the Persian Gulf.
  
  --
  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
51. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 04:00 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Excuse me, your tin-foil hat's on crooked.
52. Re:Can't wait... by kalirion · 2006-12-28 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Perspective? I'm guessing that WAY more people die of old age every day in China than are murdered in the U.S. Does that make Chinese old age more tragic than murder in the states? Numbers aren't everything.
53. Re:Can't wait... by Jeremy+Erwin · 2006-12-28 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Set the field back by decades? Explain. Where would your field be without Chomsky?
54. Re:Can't wait... by radl33t · 2006-12-28 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  It is funny you crackpot. Would you make the same claim of Newton and his physics? Derailing physics for hundreds of years to the detriment of science? It takes about 5 seconds of third grade research to find that you are completely misrepresenting reality.
55. Re:Can't wait... by A+beautiful+mind · 2006-12-28 04:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  He had gassed his own people, killing far more than have died in this current 'war'.
  What crack are you on? There were reports coming out even years ago saying that in 2003 alone, the US led invasion on Iraq killed more people than Saddam killed in the last 20(!) years combined!
  
  I don't think it's worth a single American life to help people who are not among our own
  Your own what? Race? A more important human?
  
  --
  It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
  Be yourself no matter what they say
56. Re:Can't wait... by elrous0 · 2006-12-28 04:18 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Tell me more of this "automobile" you speak of.
  It sounds like a dastardly good killer. But does it offer the value and performance I've come to expect with my laser sharks?
  -Eric
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
57. Re:Can't wait... by q-the-impaler · 2006-12-28 04:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Conrete is VERY dusty. Take a small chunk of conrete and throw it on the ground. Examine the dust that fell off. Now imagine a Beowulf cluster of these, and there's your frickin cloud.
  
  I only slightly jest. The concept is the same. Potential energy is a lot stronger than you think. I've been next to an avalanche and I could see how a landslide as such can make you think there was an explosion. The sound is spectacular. Probably a similar idea, only there was no slide, just buckling girders wrapped in concrete falling straight down 1300 ft.
  
  --
  Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
58. Re:Can't wait... by c_forq · 2006-12-28 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  To add to that an amazingly high amount of people in America see flashes as a result of loud noises (I can't remember the name of the disorder, but it is extremely common).
  
  --
  Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
59. Re:Can't wait... by slughead · 2006-12-28 04:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What crack are you on? There were reports coming out even years ago saying that in 2003 alone, the US led invasion on Iraq killed more people than Saddam killed in the last 20(!) years combined!
  
  Sources:
  182,000 gassed in the late 80's by Saddam.
  
  57,617 MAX Iraqi deaths in this war.
  
  Your own what? Race? A more important human?
  
  My beliefs were not the point of my post, I was just revealing my 'bias'. I will now further elaborate on my beliefs:
  
  I don't feel this country owes anybody else a thing. Meddling in the affairs of others is likely the most avoidable cause of terrorist attacks on this country and a poor public image in the eyes of other nations. All we have to do is nothing, and nobody can blame us for anything. Obviously, we don't have the cash to be doing this stuff anyway (look at our deficit), and we NEVER get paid. IMO, if we're to go out and be the world's police, the world should pay us back (and more than just buying our Gov't bonds).
  
  If the US had stayed out of WWI, there may have never been a WWII. If the US hadn't helped the Sudan kick Bin Laden out, he may not have been in Afghanistan. How big do we have to F'up, and how much money (which we don't have) do we have to waste before we stop with this foolishness?
  
  --
  Latewire
60. Re:Can't wait... by (A)*(B)!0_- · 2006-12-28 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Why? Our troops are already being attacked. A similar incident would be quite underwhelming in comparison to the bloodshed on the streets of Baghdad and would do nothing to change the level of support for the war.
61. Re:Can't wait... by c6gunner · 2006-12-28 04:52 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  On the other hand, the war is a single product of a single administration and the entire US public's attitudes (apathy, ignorance?) towards a single issue. It's much more preventable; it's much more treatable.
  Prove it. Show with 100% certainty that the Bush administration is 100% responsible for the war in Iraq.
  
  Can't do it? Didn't think so.
  
  Fact is, using your logic, we could just as easily pin the war on Sadams initial invasion of Kuwait, or on Bush 1's failure to get rid of Saddam in '91, or on the Clinton administrations inability to force Saddam to cooperate, or on the Iraqi people's inability to get their government to act reasonably, or on the UN's inability to do...well, ANYTHING. In addition, you could also blame the vast majority of todays Iraqi deaths on:
  
  1) Muslim clerics who continue to stir up the populace.
  2) Foreign terror groups who intentionally target civilians.
  3) Iran and Syria, for funding the insurgency and the terrorists.
  4) Iraqi politicians/clerics who maintain their own personal armies.
  5) Corrupt leftovers of the Saddam era regime, who are currently trying to subvert the ING and IP forces to their own purposes.
  
  In other words, war is a complex business, and saying that it's "a single product of a single administration" is so ignorant that it shouldn't even warrant a response. Unfortunately, way too many people think (or fail to) the way you do.
62. Re:Can't wait... by geobeck · 2006-12-28 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  The Iraq/Iran war was so horrendous it was almost like WWI was in Europe, only with more effective weaponry including but not limited to--yep, you guessed it--chemical weapons.
  
  So you're saying there were no chemical weapons used in World War One?
  
  Bush did not go into Iraq to stop Saddam from killing Iraqis; he went in because of an imagined threat to US national security.
  
  --
  Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
63. Re:Can't wait... by xappax · 2006-12-28 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  The automobile is, ironically, one of the central causes of some of the more politicized problems in society.
  
  American automobiles have created the greatest single demand for oil in the world. Demand for oil and the need to control oil supplies was one of the key reasons for invading Iraq, and why we are so reluctant to leave now.
  
  Automobiles are one of the greatest contributors to atmospheric pollution, which kills many people from things like cancer and severe lung problems.
  
  There are definitely people who see cars as one of the most harmful, irresponsibly used technologies in the modern era. I'm one of them, which is why I choose not to drive cars and instead use a bicycle or efficient mass-transit for transportation. I'd encourage other people to re-evaluate the "car culture" that is so universal in the US - who would think that such a ubiquitous aspect of American life could be the source of so many problems?
64. Re:Can't wait... by geobeck · 2006-12-28 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Besides that, a senior administration official gave this justification.
  
  Oh wait... he wasn't in the Bush administration.
  
  --
  Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
65. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  Chomsky is no Newton.
66. Re:Can't wait... by bberens · 2006-12-28 05:09 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I think that's called lightning.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
67. Re:Can't wait... by theskipper · 2006-12-28 05:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  But, per President Bush himself, one event (9/11) was directly responsible for the second (attacking Iraq).
  
  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20 030319-1.html
  
  Seems black and white, no?
68. Re:Can't wait... by slughead · 2006-12-28 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying there were no chemical weapons used in World War One?
  
  I didn't mean to, but I guess I sort of implied that.
  
  I knew about the chem weapons on WWI, but they weren't very effective, just really horrible. The nerve agents the Iraqi Gov't used were far more effective at killing people, but the corpses didn't look as ugly and the survivors weren't physically maimed like in mustard and chlorine gas attacks.
  
  As a side note (and not directed at you), keep in mind when reading about 'casualties', they mean troops that were made 'ineffective'. Someone who loses a leg or is covered in blisters is considered a causality, even though they are not technically dead. Many mistakenly think the terms 'dead' and 'casualties' are the same.
  
  --
  Latewire
69. Re:Can't wait... by kestasjk · 2006-12-28 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  But what if the US had stayed out of WWII?
  
  By the way did the Versailles Treaty have anything to do with the US? I know there were other causes of WWII but wasn't that the main one? (My history is genuinely poor, I'm not being rhetorical)
  
  --
  // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
70. Re:Can't wait... by MrJynxx · 2006-12-28 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  There isn't 300 million americans physically fighting the war in iraq. So your perspective is a little off as well.
  
  MrJynx
71. Re:Can't wait... by SoulRider · 2006-12-28 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Why exactly did you draw that comparison?
  
  Maybe because the current administration started this asshat war on the lie that Saddam had something to do with 9/11?
72. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  see flashes as a result of loud noises
  
  I think that's called lightning.
  You've got it backwards. I was taught the loud noise was a result of the flash. But haha, you vewy funny guy.
73. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 05:37 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  There were reports coming out even years ago saying that in 2003 alone, the US led invasion on Iraq killed more people than Saddam killed in the last 20(!) years combined!
  
  Some reports count the death of insurgents and deaths caused by insurgents as "US" deaths. Some reports count "avoidable" deaths in Iraq, but use different (and arbitrary) definitions of "avoidable" for US-occupied Iraq and the Iraq of Saddam Hussein. So please be sure to cite a specific report so we can dismantle it properly.
  
  These points are moot, however, since a death count is a stupid metric to use in the first place. For instance, we lost many more people fighting World War II than we ever did at Pearl Harbor, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a worthwhile fight. The reasons we should not be in Iraq are many, but at best the death count issue should only be brought up to argue why, if we leave for other reasons, we should do so as quickly as possible.
74. Re:Can't wait... by El+Torico · 2006-12-28 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  The other country that starts with an "I" and has four letters.
  
  --
  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
75. Re:Can't wait... by A+beautiful+mind · 2006-12-28 05:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The best methods available for surveying casualties tells us that the body count is around the most probable number of 655 thousand, which is backed by the statistical community. The iraqi body count page only operates from news reports, it is bound to be only the fraction of the real number.
  
  So, I stand by my original post.
  
  Also, it have to be noted that the 182k figure that you're quoting came up in the Saddam trial, which is not impartial by any standards and I wouldn't rely on it. The internationally accepted version of history attributes much less casualties to Saddam, around 55k.
  
  I don't feel this country owes anybody else a thing.
  Actually you do owe some things to the world: the USA needs to obey the international/universal human rights agreements.
  
  IMO, if we're to go out and be the world's police, the world should pay us back (and more than just buying our Gov't bonds).
  The world police expression is an extremely stupid phrase. It implies that you're doing a service, while in reality all you do is look out for your own interests aggressively - hence the world's police expression. I don't see why the world should be grateful and even supportive of the USA given the events of the last century of cowboy politics and waging wars of self interest.
  
  --
  It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
  Be yourself no matter what they say
76. Re:Can't wait... by Copid · 2006-12-28 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it was abundantly clear that Bush simply had no choice other than starting a ground campaign to topple and replace the Iraqi government. We were all just fresh out of ideas by the time it all started.
  
  --
  An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
77. Re:Can't wait... by Iron+(III)+Chloride · 2006-12-28 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  True, I was wrong in saying that the war is a "single product of a single administration," but this administration has had the vast majority of the role in making this decision. Personally, I think it is quite obvious that the war was wholly unnecessary given the alternatives and the result (no WMDs found). Any benefit, at least in the short term and probably into the long term as well, has been outweighed by the cost in terms of human life, time spent doing other things (perhaps concentrate on North Korea and Iran), and of course money itself. What do you think?
  
  --
  Cogito, ergo sum, fosho!
78. Re:Can't wait... by Schemat1c · 2006-12-28 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  In addition, you could also blame the vast majority of todays Iraqi deaths on:
  
  1) Muslim clerics who continue to stir up the populace.
  2) Foreign terror groups who intentionally target civilians.
  3) Iran and Syria, for funding the insurgency and the terrorists.
  4) Iraqi politicians/clerics who maintain their own personal armies.
  5) Corrupt leftovers of the Saddam era regime, who are currently trying to subvert the ING and IP forces to their own purposes.
  
  In other words, war is a complex business, and saying that it's "a single product of a single administration" is so ignorant that it shouldn't even warrant a response. Every reason you gave would mean diddly if our troops were not in Iraq. Who sent the troops there? The current administration.
  
  Now go back into your hole, shill.
  
  --
  
  "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
79. Re:Can't wait... by Iron+(III)+Chloride · 2006-12-28 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that we should have a perspective of erudition as opposed to apathy. However, I think your reduction of causes might have been too general here. Those three causes, as you said, are the cause of any error. However, when we deal with car accidents we are dealing with human nature (most humans are quite ... lazy ... and will not take the time to clearly apply information towards future "goals" of driving safely) as well as a few millennia of culture. You have a significantly more complex issue at hand when dealing with mistakes such as these and to rectify them would take significantly less effort than to persuade people on a single issue of Iraqi War (or, if you have sufficiently political influence, directly influence the Bush administration). That is not to say we should attempt to rectify both problems; some problems take longer than others and perhaps it is a good idea to go "one step at a time." What do you think?
  
  --
  Cogito, ergo sum, fosho!
80. Re:Can't wait... by Headcase88 · 2006-12-28 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Where would computing be without Windows? We'll have to bring out a time machine to know for sure, but those don't exist yet, presumably because someone has been setting the field back on it. I blame SCO Group *waits for karma*
  
  --
  "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
81. Re:Can't wait... by Hatta · 2006-12-28 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'm also puzzled as to how a Jew can be deemed anti-semitic.
  
  Never heard of a self-hating jew?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
82. Re:Can't wait... by (A)*(B)!0_- · 2006-12-28 06:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I really don't see that happening. Of course, it's easy to make these kind of predictions on the Internet because no one is going to follow you up on it but I will break the rule and mark you as a friend. If this prediction of yours is to ever come true, I will acknowledge your mystical powers
83. Re:Can't wait... by gt_mattex · 2006-12-28 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Che Guevarra wasn't a pompous asshole.
  
  Che Guevarra was a notorious pompous asshole. He was known in particular for belittling anyone who he felt was intellectually inferior. Please read your own source in its entirety.
  
  --
  "No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture." - Learned Hand
84. Re:Can't wait... by Hatta · 2006-12-28 06:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "More American lives have now been lost in Iraq as compared to those that died on 9/11."
  
  Why exactly did you draw that comparison?
  
  Look at it this way:
  
  By his orders Bin Laden sent 2,700 Americans to their deaths.
  
  By his orders George W. Bush sent 3,000 Americans to their deaths.
  
  Who is America's enemy?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
85. Re:Can't wait... by gt_mattex · 2006-12-28 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  I apologize you didn't provide a source.
  Here: Che Guevarra
  Look under Legacy and Criticisms.
  
  --
  "No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture." - Learned Hand
86. Re:Can't wait... by gt_mattex · 2006-12-28 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  That's odd, I linked it I'm sure. Anyway Here goes one more time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevarra
  
  --
  "No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture." - Learned Hand
87. Re:Can't wait... by Threni · 2006-12-28 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  > Never heard of a self-hating jew?
  
  I've only ever heard idiots use that phrase.
  
  I mean, is it a Jew that hates himself because he's a Jew, or simply someone who happens to be Jewish who hates themself? If they hated being Jews they could just stop, so it must be the latter, but that suggests that no non-Jews hate themselves, which is laughable.
  
  Sometimes `anti-semitic` means `disapproving of the actions of the government of Israel` but that would include a lot of Israel Jews.
  
  It's entirely possible, of course, that you're being sarcastic, and that it's flown over my head as a result of what for legal reasons I'll simply describe as "christmas excess".
88. Re:Can't wait... by larry+bagina · 2006-12-28 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  more Americans died in 3.75 years of combat than died in 3 hours of plane crashes... What's your point again?
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
89. Re:Can't wait... by Jeremy+Erwin · 2006-12-28 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Quite right. He's American, for one.
90. Re:Can't wait... by El+Torico · 2006-12-28 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough. Of course, I'm going to brag about a recent "hit" prediction.
  
  http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=205217&cid=167 52561
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld#Resig nation
  
  Honestly, I hope that this one doesn't come true.
  
  --
  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
91. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  I would also think that him executing hundreds of political prisoners with or without military show trials could also be classified as "being an asshole" or at least "being a dick." Noam Chomsky is annoying, but he isn't quite as much of an asshole as Che yet.
92. Re:Can't wait... by ozmanjusri · 2006-12-28 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  If they truly believe in peace then they should be willing to sacrifice their life for it.
  Peter Sellers? Is that you?
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
93. Re:Can't wait... by geekoid · 2006-12-28 08:45 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Not to mention the force of the air being shoved down as the building collapsed.
  Substantially more force the a cat 5.
  
  Peopelalso neglect to relize that the weight is designed onlt to be in specific points, want ot shifter a certien number of degree beyond it's design, it will fall STRAIGHT down.
  
  I have seen computer simmulations of many different types of building collapses, there all pretty much the same visually.
  
  But the most telling way that there is nothing wrong with the way it fell is all the simulations done by engineers in other countries, some of which would love to point out any discrepencies in the collapse.
  
  This is also the number one laymans way of proving the moon landing was not a hoax: Russia would have ratted us out in a heart beat if the radio transmission were off.
  Don't underestimate the desire of other countries to call us out.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
94. Re:Can't wait... by mandelbr0t · 2006-12-28 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Mod -1 troll plz:
  
  IMO, if we're to go out and be the world's police, the world should pay us back (and more than just buying our Gov't bonds).
  Of course, that's assuming the world wants the Americans to be the world's police. I would endure the most chaotic and bloody anarchy to avoid having the American police having any power over me. Let's see DMCA, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay... Yes, those are the results of an enlightened and fair legal system -- NOT! I'm not even going to offer to let you pay me to be my police. At this point in time, the American idea of justice has cost me more money than I'd care to count. Keep your policemen, we sure as hell don't need 'em.
  mandelbr0t
  
  --
  "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
95. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  >column segments cut at neat 45 degree angles
  
  From my Mechanical Engineering undergrad courses:
  
  The maximum shear stress in a structure under compression is along a line at a 45 degree angle from the compressive force. As far as I can remember, structures that fail due to compression forces shear along that 45 degree angle line (which I've seen in wood and concrete columns).
96. Re:Can't wait... by Malfourmed · 2006-12-28 09:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  57,617 MAX Iraqi deaths in this war.
  
  The Iraq Body Count website only tallies deaths on an incident-by-incident basis that are reported in reputable media. A minimum of two independent agencies need to publish a report before they are willing to add it to the count.
  
  There are many deaths that are never reported for a variety of reasons (eg lack of journalistic coverage in many areas), let alone twice. As such, even the "max" number on the website can be considered to be a "minimum" actual number.
  
  --
  a world in progress...
97. Re:Can't wait... by mandelbr0t · 2006-12-28 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  *sigh* Teaching American history to Americans again. Is there anything that Americans do learn in school? ;)
  
  The Versailles Treaty (which ended WWI) involved all parties, including the United States. It insisted on reparations being paid from Germany to France. It also established the Weimar Republic (a democratic government to replace King Wilhelm) and the League of Nations (a precursor to the UN). In protest of the reparation payments, the German government printed all the required bank notes from their treasury, thus causing massive hyperinflation. This happened in the early to late '20s. Hitler staged his Beer Hall Putsch in Munich in 1923, and spent 9 months in jail, when he wrote Mein Kampf. In 1925, the Americans attempted to combat the weak German economy with the Dawson plan, which actually stabilized the economy somewhat. Had the stock market crash of 1929 not happened, it is likely that the Dawson plan would have restored normalcy to Europe and prevented a major economic factor leading to WWII.
  
  However, the stock market crash led to increased radical thinking, and launched Hitler on his way to the Chancellory. The Versailles Treaty definitely set some important background leading up to WWII, but I'd say that the length of time between the end of WWI and WWII is too long to claim it as the only cause. Read some more; there's plenty of interesting theories about the rise of the Third Reich and WWII.
  
  Feel free to mod OT.
  
  mandelbr0t
  
  --
  "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
98. Re:Can't wait... by x2A · 2006-12-28 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Synesthesia - when input on one sense can trigger/insert memories of another sense. Most common is that sounds will generate colors or patterns. Common enough to bare in mind if one or two people saw it, but doubtfully a plausable explanation for more than that (I say nothing more than that as I've not studied accounts of people who were in the buildings at the time).
  
  --
  The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
99. Re:Can't wait... by geekoid · 2006-12-28 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  "we need to see it through until Iraq says, "Get the hell out, already" "
  
  Many people in Iraq are saying that now.
  
  or do you mean the person in charge? the guy that stands to make a lot of money, and gather a lot of power, once our bases have been finished?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
100. Re:Can't wait... by dapsychous · 2006-12-28 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  True, but many is not the same thing as the majority. If they want to set up true democratic action (which, sadly, doesn't exist here, and probably won't exist there), the issue of whether or not to boot the crazy-ass Americans should fall to a general vote. Unfortunately, though, I don't see that happening... umm... ever.
  
  Hadn't really thought about it like that. Hmmm... you have provoked much thought.
  
  I guess the only real answer is to trust our leaders? Ok, stop laughing now. They suck and I don't trust them either. Unfortunately, short of storming the capitol with M16s, which I fear would only end in tragedy, there's not much that can be done about it until the next election, at which point there will be much bickering and finger-pointing, followed by one of two options:
  1. The same assho^H^H^H^H^H people that are responsible for our current situation are put back in to office and the situation continues.
  -- or --
  2. New assho^H^H^H^H^H people are put into office, who immidiately see the money that can be made in an international military action, and the situation still continues.
  
  So.... That only leaves a citizen revolt to end this little problem, and unfortunately, Americans are to lazy to do anything about it.
  
  I got a nice spot picked out on the moon, and as soon as commercial transit opens up, I'll be laughing my ass off while you Earthlings blow the shit out of each other.
101. Re:Can't wait... by Malc · 2006-12-28 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  I can't see that happening either. This war in Iraq has just about made that impossible, as well as letting N. Korea off the hook. The US can't invade Iran (will the American people really support a draft? The boy cried wolf, now pay the consequences), and good will around the world to support action against Korea was lost by the invasion of Iraq.
102. Re:Can't wait... by Qzukk · 2006-12-28 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Show with 100% certainty that the Bush administration is 100% responsible for the war in Iraq.
  
  Let's try it your way:
  
  1) Muslim clerics who continue to stir up the populace ordered the US Army into Iraq. [2 dozen snipers could have dealt with this in two weeks]
  2) Foreign terror groups who intentionally target civilians ordered the US Army into Iraq. [ditto, with the added bonus that if you blew up a few apartment complexes and pinned the blame on these terror groups, they'd evaporate in a few months once they became unpopular with their neighbors]
  3) Iran and Syria ordered the US Army into Iraq. [Don't know what to tell you here, other than our army appears to be in the wrong fucking nation, now doesn't it?]
  4) Iraqi politicians ordered the US Army into Iraq to be their own personal army. [Iraqi politicians with personal armies? First I've heard of it, though I know over there anyone wanting to maintain law and order pretty much HAVE to be an army unto themselves]
  5) Corrupt leftovers of the Saddam era regime ordered the US Army into Iraq. [Ditto on the snipers]
  
  There were good (even if some turned out wrong) reasons why our army went into Iraq. You listed NONE of them. We ran out of good reasons once we dug Saddam out of his hole.
  
  it's "a single product of a single administration"
  
  The buck stops at the top. Who failed to plan for your #1-5? Who failed to plan for "what happens next" after Saddam was gone? Who failed to plan for insurgency when just about everyone outside of the administration pointed out that evicting the last secular regime in the middle east would have created a power vacuum that'd make seasoned whores blush?
  
  It's just more of today's buck-passing culture at work. Boy smashes in a window... must be the baseball coach's fault for giving him the bat, must be the gangsta rapper's fault for glorifying violence, must be the video game's fault for teaching the kid how to break windows, must be Hollywood's fault for creating an anti-authoritarian culture. But the boy's fault? Never!
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
103. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  Read your own links:
  
  Every entry on IBC has a name and a date (go ahead...look them up...they're all there). These are actual confirmed kills. Because of the high standard, these numbers are believed to be MUCH lower than the total civilian death toll (hence the difference between the 65,000 and 660,000 estimates).
  
  The other article does not even come close to claiming that Saddam gassed 182,00 kurds. The sentence that you are referring to states that someone accused Saddam's people of killing 182,000 kurds using all means over the course of a campaign. The closest thing it offers to a verifiable fact is that the prosecutor in the case stated "There were 1,200 casualties of those who were killed and injured by the special weapon and strikes." If I had claimed that "Bush cluster bombed 700,000 iraqis" I sincerely hope that you or someone else would tell me that I was full of shit. So, in the spirit of the Golden Rule, I feel obligated to tell you that you are full of shit (at least wrt these stats).
  
  I agree with your general beliefs. As a part of the non-US world, I will say that we are paying in any number of ways, including cash for the US' self-assumed duties as the "world's police". IMO, if you want to be the world's police: 1) finish what you start, 2) act like police rather than thugs, 3) be wanted. Nobody wants police that will break into your house, kill the innocent and go for a donut as soon as the ambulance shows up for the wounded.
104. Re:Can't wait... by Charcharodon · 2006-12-28 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  Sadam killed everyone in Iraq...everyone that stood against him. Terrorists, Muslims, Christians, football (soccer) players, left handed people, right handed people, . So what exactly is your point?
  Bush never said Iraq was behind 9-11, he said that Iraq had weapons of mass distruction like 50 million times and said places like Iraq were part of the Axis of Evil (Iraq, Iran, and North Korea). Countries that all sought WOMD or supported terrorism. Which so happens to have been correct. Iraq has been pursuing such things for decades even though it turns out he was just bluffing the last few years to keep all his neighboors cowed. This was all part of the great "WAR ON TERROR" and so it was and is today.
  Oh wait I forget there for second I thought I was responding to someone with a braincell or two beyond the
  "I HATE BUSH BECAUSE HE IS A BAD BAD BAD MAN." "See he must be very bad because I said Bad three times".
  It somewhat forgiveable that most of the slashdot crowd doesn't have a clue about events that occured more than fifty years ago in the world, but for god sakes 9/11 was only 5 years ago.
  So that must mean you have been living under a rock and just recently dialed into current events, or are a highly informed 18-22 years old (aka uninformed good little robot that parrots every anti-gov't thing they hear or read), or are an idiot?
  So which is it?
105. Re:Can't wait... by rtechie · 2006-12-28 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  How many would Saddam have killed if he'd remained in power?
  
  A tiny fraction of those that are now dead. We don't have to speculate about this. It's a fact. It is quite easy to calculate what the death rate is in most nations, Iraq is not much of an exception even now. It's about 20x higher now than it was in early 2003 under Saddam Hussien. It's at least 5x what it was during the massive war with Iran. And since that war, Iraq's military capability (according to all accounts) had vastly degraded. Saddam Hussien didn't even have control of his own nation, with Northern Iraq effectively a seperate Kurdish state.
  
  So IF Saddam Hussien were still in power, AND he decided to start a massive war with either Israel or Iran, AND he somehow completely reconsitituted his military to pre-Gulf War levels in the span of a few months, And he swiftly defeated the Kurdish forces, AND he set up concentration camps/death squads to kill huge numbers of Iraqis indiscriminately, he MIGHT have been able to match the current death rate. The chance of any of the above happening was/is ZERO.
  
  He had gassed his own people, killing far more than have died in this current 'war'.
  
  Wrong. The outside numbers of Iraqi civilians that died from poison gas (provided by the US government) is somewhere between 3,000 and 20,000. The number I've heard most often is 13,000. A far cry from the estimated 600,000 dead in the current conflict.
  
  I doubt if you're going by strict numbers, you can say that more lives have been lost as a result of removing Saddam from power in this way than to leave him in power.
  
  Again, you are wrong. Death rates in Iraq are currently at least 20x what they were in 2002/early 2003. Especially among young men.
  
  Unless, of course, we bail out of Iraq. In that case, there will probably be a civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands more.
  
  There is a civil war in Iraq right now, sponsored and exacerbated largely by the United States. If the US forces left Iraq there is little doubt the civil conflict would abate. However the deaths of hundreds of thousands more Iraqis is now inevitable. If you really want to do something to help them you should be encouraging the USA to stop pissing away billions on useless "security" expenses in Iraq and instead send that money directly to the (now millions of) Iraqi refugees crammed into Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, etc.
  
  Therefore, even from a compassionate perspective, this was a mistake; not because we can't win, but because the American people don't have the testicular fortitude anymore to do what is necessary to win.
  
  Define "win" and then describe in detail how we get there in Iraq. Explain to us how you plan to stop the sectarian violence in Iraq, stop the insurgency against Coalition forces, rebuild the shattered infrastructure of the country, and convince Iraqis to accept Western democracy, values, and economic policy. We constantly hear this drivel about "staying the course" and the need to "win" in Iraq without the slightest hint as to how we might do that or if it's even possible.
  
  And no backpedaling. It is not fair to say "Well it COULD have gone perfectly, but Rumsfeld fucked it up." which is what you hear from a lot of necons today. You are saying that it is possible to "win" in Iraq NOW. I'd like to hear HOW.
106. Re:Can't wait... by Charcharodon · 2006-12-28 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  He must have forgot Heikell, that you were on his Presidential Cabinet and should have access to everything the President knows. What a jerk keeping you out of the loop like that!
  Oh wait that's right he's the President and you're not, funny how that works isn't it?
107. Re:Can't wait... by Charcharodon · 2006-12-28 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Ah I am pleased at least one out of the mulitudes of the unwashed masses here on /dot understands. I feel there is a glimmer of hope for humanity yet.
  For those of you who are still confused. The Iraq War is just a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.
  Blaming Bush for the whole mess is nothing more than scape goating and frankly is incorrect and unproductive. If you want to see who really started the Iraq war then all you have to do is but look in a mirror. (Nice little rippoff from V4V)
  It's the unavoidable truth. I suggest you do something about it if you don't like it. If you aren't willing to make some changes then shut the fuck up about the war.
108. Re:Can't wait... by Charcharodon · 2006-12-28 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  Death doesn't have to keep your from living.
  http://www.devilducky.com/media/42544/
  It's funny how numbers seem to be everything to everyone. Especially those strongly against or for the war, since they just wonn't shut up about them.
  Here is a fun fact for you, more people in the US military die each year in auto and motorcycle accidents at home station than die in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan combined during the same time period. Here is another fun fact to go along with it. They also tend to kill family members or friends when they do it. Last time I checked not too many kids and spouses getting blown up by IED over inb Iraq.
  Perspective + numbers are very important. One without the other is pretty much pointless.
109. Re:Can't wait... by Charcharodon · 2006-12-28 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  I bet if you made a cool movie about a secret agent that drives really fast in small European cars while fighting an Evil Genuis who has "frinkin sharks with frikin lasers beams attached to their heads" it would lead to millions if not BILLIONS running out and buying these automobiles and in turn spell their doom.
110. Re:Can't wait... by Charcharodon · 2006-12-28 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  No it's not, my perspective is just fine thank you.
  I was mearly making fun of people that hyperventilate over the numbers killed in Iraq when while at the same time they don't even bat an eyelash over the staggering numbers killed and maimed everyday in every portion of the US and for that fact the world.
111. Re:Can't wait... by Charcharodon · 2006-12-28 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  it should be a perspective of erudition, not apathy
  Well that's the trick now isn't it?
  Ignorance got us into the war, now the ignorant are screamming for us to get out. How are is one supposed to deal with that?
112. Re:Can't wait... by sgt_doom · 2006-12-28 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  Outstanding post, Good Citizen Threni. One might add the names of Michael Parenti and Howard Zinn for an historical perspective. And well articulated about "conspiracy theories," which appears to be the new neocon buzzphrase whenever they've been found out about anything and everything.....
113. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 15:17 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Your posts are both misleading and full of inaccuracies.
  
  1. You seem to be implying that the amount people killed as a result of Saddam's policies during the Iraq-Iran war would be related to the amount of people that would be killed between 2003-present in a non-invaded Iraq. I don't see why this would be the case. The circumstances in those time periods would be entirely different. Most importantly Saddam was completely supported and backed by the US during the Iraq-Iran war, which was most likely what allowed him to carry out such atrocities. If you don't believe me, then feel free to read the publicly available declassified records available from the National Security Archives at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index .htm. Among other things, they contain the minutes from Rumsfeld's meetings with Saddam during the early 1980's, when the US-Iraq special relationship developed.
  
  2. Of course Iraq is of "extreme strategic significance". The country has one of the largest energy reserves in the world, and if the US manages to stabilize Iraq enough for US oil companies to invest in it at the expense of the Iraq people, then the US will have increased its superpower status substantially. Read the "Crude Designs" report (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/cru dedesigns.htm) for an analysis of this.
  
  3. As "A beautiful mind" correctly points out, your figure of 57,617 Iraqi deaths in the war is completely false. Look at the Iraq Body Count's webpage that you linked to. They explicitly state that that number refers to the number of iraq deaths REPORTED. That's a big difference between that and the total number of Iraq deaths, which is probably around 600,000. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mor tality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq)
  
  4. The philosophy you propose seems ignorant and racist. I don't see why an American life should be worth more than others, as you suggest when you say "I don't think it's worth a single American life to help people who are not among our own". And why is it so important that the US get "paid back". If the US does save lives as a result of its actions, then shouldn't that in itself be enough compensation. Furthermore, inaction which you propound as a guiding principle of US politics is completely unrealistic. The US's economy is tightly linked to that of many other countries, and US companies have a presence in many other countries. These facts alone necessitate that the US be involved in world politics, and humanitarian reasons should justify this as well.
  
  5. You claim that the US owes nobody anything else and that the US should get paid back for police work that it has done in the past. What "police work" are you refering to? Most of US military intervention has been to protect and secure the interest of US companies, and things are the other way around: The US owes other countries for unjustified intervention in the past. Here are some examples:
  
  * The invasion of Panama in 1989 (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Panama)
  * The US-backed coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002 (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_coup_attem pt_of_2002)
  * 25 years of US sanctions against Cuba that have been repeatedly denounced by the UN (See http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10529.doc .htm)
  * US sanctions against Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of over 500,000 children (See http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/200
114. Re:Can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 15:36 · Score: 0
  
  FauX doesn't RUN news at night - it runs three freakshows in a row, and then repeats them (Blo'Reilly, Vannity/Colmes, Grunta von Scientologist).
115. Re:Can't wait... by tinkertim · 2006-12-28 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  Mod ^^^^^^ up +5 insightful for mentioning Noam Chomsky.
  
  I heard him interviewed by Amy Goodman several times which sparked me to begin reading his stuff. Its *difficult* to read because Noam can't possibly fully explain himself and how he reaches his conclusions inside of a book that weighs under 20 lbs.
  
  However, once you read his books (several times each), no matter your political orientation a light bulb will go on in your brain. Its not just what he says that is of extreme use and interest, its getting insight into his thought process that is most amazing.
  
  Now for my confusing 2 cents : I'm no longer alarmed that the nation as a whole was not extremely alarmed when we first invaded Iraq, which I find rather alarming in and of itself.
  
  There is nothing to de-classify about the war in Iraq, you can't hope to document a negative. Better explained :
  
  The fact that the entire mess happened without most people even lifting a finger to question it is the issue, the means of aggression (in this case our Government) is incidental, just a catalyst, the fact that it happened at all is what should be examined.
  
  None of that is classified because there was no resistance whatsoever, nothing to document, nothing to cover up. Its all perfecly (not) out in the open.
  
  Brilliant, Mr Rove.
116. Re:Can't wait... by cold+fjord · 2006-12-28 17:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The best methods available for surveying casualties tells us that the body count is around the most probable number of 655 thousand....
  
  I wouldn't be so sure that study is reliable.
  
  655,000 War Dead? A bogus study on Iraq casualties
  
  The Iraq Body Count project take on it.
  
  Some additional discussion.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
117. Re:Can't wait... by jericho4.0 · 2006-12-28 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  "Chomsky's so-called "Universal Grammar" looks just like English"
  That statement makes no sense. UG is not a precriptive grammar, it's a theory about learning grammar. I, for one, happen to think he's wrong, but certainly not for lack of smarts or insight.
  
  --
  "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
118. Re:Can't wait... by FrostedChaos · 2006-12-28 19:10 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Ok. I know that this issue has been discussed to death, and it's hard for people to think rationally about it. But bear with me for a moment.
  
  Sadam killed everyone in Iraq...everyone that stood against him. Terrorists, Muslims, Christians, football (soccer) players, left handed people, right handed people, . So what exactly is your point?
  
  Saddam Hussein was a secular leader who kept a lid on the power of the religious radicals in the country. He fought a war against the Islamic fundamentalist government of Iran. During this time, he received funding and military backing from the U.S. government.
  
  Whatever other terrible things he did, Saddam was NOT a terrorist or Islamic fundamentalist. That's the point.
  
  Bush never said Iraq was behind 9-11, he said that Iraq had weapons of mass distruction like 50 million times and said places like Iraq were part of the Axis of Evil (Iraq, Iran, and North Korea).
  
  According to president Bush himself, 9/11 was the justification for attacking Iraq. (Thanks to theskipper for finding this.)
  
  Bush lumped together many unrelated countries in his "axis of evil." The Big Lie of the Bush administration is the idea that the war in Iraq somehow advances the cause of national security. Do you remember Bush repeating this lie over and over throughout the last 7 years?
  
  It's become obvious even to the average voter just how silly it is to keep pissing away resources in Iraq. I think the people who opposed Iraq from the beginning deserve at least an "I told you so." Too bad we can't get that trillion dollars back, though.
  
  If you want to know why Bush really brought us into Iraq, read up on "The Project for a New American Century." This is the stuff that makes some people hysterial-- the "neoconservative" ideology. Generally speaking, neocons favor U.S. military hegemony, free trade, and the establishment of western-style republics throughout the world.
  
  Ironically, the US is the country with the most to lose in any war, because we have the most money and the most political power. By overextending ourselves, we have actually weakened our position across the board. Try as they might, China, Afghanistan, or Iraq could never have done the United States a more grievous hurt than G.W. Bush has in the last decade.
  
  --
  "Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
119. Re:Can't wait... by Omestes · 2006-12-28 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  Not to sound like a troll, but I don't think that his reputation as a "thinker" has anything to do with his work in linguistics, besides it allowed him enough fame to get recognition of his Vietnam activities. His modern role as "thinker" is (in part) grounded in his political thought, and not his linguistics. Also his skill in linguistics has nothing to do with his skill in critiquing politics, they are separate domains. It's like discrediting Einstein's physics because he was a shitty carpenter.
  
  Other allegations against him, brought up someplace above, are somewhat laughable. Especially calling him an anti-Semite, no where have I seen him attack Jews AS PEOPLE, which would be the definition of the term. Yes he doesn't like Israel, but that does not make one an anti-semite. I don't like the government of N. Korea, but I'm not against Koreans in general, hating the actions of a government does not preclude hating the people under that government, or the ethnic/religious group represented by the government. The Taliban was bad, but that does not necessarily mean I hate Persians.
  
  That said I'm still out on Chomsky, I DO think he brings up valid points, and gets more than 50% of his historical facts rights, and he does fill a valuable role in debate (think of him as the anti-Coulter, or the Micheal Moore with an IQ). But his credibility is hurt by his.. er... "passion". Anyone that emotional about their thesis deserves a second look, emotions can overwhelm reason. Sometimes he seems a little to antsy to attack the U.S. only for the sake of attacking the U.S. Yes the U.S. has done some REALLY bad things (see South America for example), but Chomsky goes out of his way looking for evidence of wrong doing, and appoints blame where it isn't due, or where it should be shared.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
120. Re:Can't wait... by A+beautiful+mind · 2006-12-28 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  I don't care what opinionated and personally involved people say about the study. The peer review concluded that the study is using the most reliable method and they think it's firm in it's conclusions.
  
  Here is a link discussing the media distortion issue, btw.
  
  --
  It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
  Be yourself no matter what they say
121. Re:Can't wait... by loki_tiwaz · 2006-12-28 19:48 · Score: 0
  
  I personally was agnostic about the inside job stuff until I saw the clip of wtc7 collapsing. If you haven't seen it, you should: youtube video of the clip plus some physics modelling analysis I hadn't seen this clip before but it's even more damning than the subjective 'that looks like it's being demolished' feeling I got when I first saw it. It actually demonstrates that the building clearly fell faster than freefall from a stationary start.
  
  one of the clips showing the collapse, note the oddly familiar appearance of this event to a controlled demolition.
122. Re:Can't wait... by kestasjk · 2006-12-28 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for that.
  
  *sigh* Teaching American history to Americans again. Is there anything that Americans do learn in school? ;)
  I'm not American, and history just isn't my forté.
  
  --
  // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
123. Re:Can't wait... by Raenex · 2006-12-28 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  There is a civil war in Iraq right now, sponsored and exacerbated largely by the United States. If the US forces left Iraq there is little doubt the civil conflict would abate.
  
  What's the evidence for this?
124. Re:Can't wait... by kalirion · 2006-12-29 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Last time I checked not too many kids and spouses getting blown up by IED over inb Iraq.
  
  Certainly not American kids and spouses....
125. Re:Can't wait... by Kattspya · 2006-12-29 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  This is one of the most retarded things I've read recently. By that logic Roosevelt is less moral than say Mugabe, Pinochet and Castro probably even if you put all three together.
126. Re:Can't wait... by rtechie · 2006-12-29 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  There is a civil war in Iraq right now, sponsored and exacerbated largely by the United States. If the US forces left Iraq there is little doubt the civil conflict would abate.
  
  What's the evidence for this?
  
  The civil war in Iraq is roughly a 5-way conflict. The sides are, roughly:
  
  1) Shi'te milita/"official" Iraqi army/"official" Iraqi police
  
  2) Sunni guerillas/milita
  
  3) Kurdish guerillas/milita
  
  4) The Coalition forces (American, British, etc.) and milita
  
  5) Islamist foreign insurgents
  
  The Coalition forces are currently backing 2 sides of this conflict, the Shi'te and Kurdish milita. They are actively fighting the other 2 sides, the Sunni milita and Islamist insurgents (who are largely on the side of the Sunni).
  
  The conflict would abate if the Coalition forces left simply because there would be fewer people fighting in the country. The Coalition would stop it's fighting against the Sunni and Islamists, and it's likely that most of Islamists would leave as they are in Iraq mostly to fight the Coalition forces.
  
  Note that I said "abate", not "end". I'm merely saying the the situation would improve somewhat, not that the war would end if the Coalition forces left. It is likely the conflict will continue until Syria, Iran, and Iraq's other neighbors directly intervene.
127. Re:Can't wait... by slughead · 2006-12-29 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  The best methods available for surveying casualties tells us [bbc.co.uk] that the body count is around the most probable number of 655 thousand, which is backed by the statistical community.
  
  It most certainly is not (keep in mind, this is from a fairly anti-war website).
  
  The 655k figure study, by the Lancet medical journal, sampled heavily from the most violent areas. The 655k figure is BS, and so is the survey.
  
  A much better study is available here.
  
  --
  Latewire
128. Re:Can't wait... by A+beautiful+mind · 2006-12-29 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  The original link I gave deals with the criticism issue. Amongst other things, even if Iraq would be the healthiest nation in the world, the death certificates are still only recorded for 10% of the deaths.
  
  Don't confuse the IBC with any serious academic organization. They do not do serious academic work. The statisticians back the report that was presented in the Lancet.
  
  You didn't seriously think, that the IBC method with the two reputable news source requirement for the verification of every casualty gives a realistic number in the times when even a huge explosion killing 60 people is just a footnote in the news lately? The IBC number is the absolute minimum number of proven casualties, the realistic number is many times more as a.) shown from the Lancet study b.) being extrapolated from the IBC number assuming that most deaths never get reported. The Lancet study and the IBC numbers are in agreement over the most likely number of casualties if you think about it a little. The 655k figure is more than realistic. Political sides and pro/anti war sides have no relevance here, given that the IBC has an agenda too, to protect it's own results. They have good results, but they decided to misinterpret it. Instead of treating it as a minimum number, they are using it as an approximation or even as a maximum. Stupid.
  
  As for sampling from the most violent areas, that's just not true. The study is statistically sound.
  
  --
  It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
  Be yourself no matter what they say
129. Re:Can't wait... by Raenex · 2006-12-29 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  The Coalition forces are currently backing 2 sides of this conflict, the Shi'te and Kurdish milita.
  
  I think the US is backing the people who are working with them, and not actively against them. For example, Sadr is Shi'ite, and has fought with Coalition forces. So this does not support your statement: "There is a civil war in Iraq right now, sponsored and exacerbated largely by the United States." The US is trying to install a stable, pro-Western, democratic government in Iraq, not incite a civil war. If the Sunnis would accept their new minority status, then their would be no civil war. Instead, they want to destabilize Iraq so they can regain power -- and are doing so by killing indiscriminately. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that the US has sponsored the civil war.
  The conflict would abate if the Coalition forces left simply because there would be fewer people fighting in the country.
  
  Then again it just might leave a power vacuum and cause a further escalation in violence. You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary.
  it's likely that most of Islamists would leave as they are in Iraq mostly to fight the Coalition forces.
  
  What makes you so sure? Don't you think they'd like to install their own brand of Islam-based government?
130. Re:Can't wait... by Threni · 2006-12-30 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  > But his credibility is hurt by his.. er... "passion". Anyone that emotional about their thesis
  > deserves a second look, emotions can overwhelm reason. Sometimes he seems a little to antsy to
  > attack the U.S. only for the sake of attacking the U.S. Yes the U.S. has done some REALLY bad
  > things (see South America for example), but Chomsky goes out of his way looking for evidence of
  > wrong doing, and appoints blame where it isn't due, or where it should be shared.
  
  He doesn't "attack" the U.S. "for the sake of it". I mean, really, to support that claim you'd have to find examples of him criticizing something that isn't really very wrong, or that many other governments do. I don't see much of that - it's usually major stuff like training thugs to overthrow democracies, or directly funding terrorists states such as Israel. I suppose `for the sake of it` could also mean you think he should find something else to do that is more likely to improve the state of the world.
  
  I'm not entirely sure that going out of your way to look for evidence could be considered a flaw, either.
131. Re:Can't wait... by Hatta · 2006-12-30 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Except that Roosevelt had good reason to send those men to die. Bush, um.. didn't. Not only was the war in Iraq not in the national interest, it has dramatically harmed the national interest. Bush basically wrapped up Iraq in a big bow and handed it to our enemies. He should be tried for treason on that alone.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
132. Re:Can't wait... by c6gunner · 2007-01-02 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  You're just not getting this whole "logic" thing, are you?
133. Re:Can't wait... by c6gunner · 2007-01-02 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Boy smashes in a window... must be the baseball coach's fault for giving him the bat, must be the gangsta rapper's fault for glorifying violence, must be the video game's fault for teaching the kid how to break windows, must be Hollywood's fault for creating an anti-authoritarian culture. But the boy's fault? Never!
  While I share your dislike of the "pass-the-buck" culture, the reason you're failing to see the big picture is because you're assuming that smashing the window was the wrong thing to do. If you wanted to work the Iraq war into your analogy, you'd have to have the window working on developing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, invading foreign nations, defying international sanctions, harbouring terrorists, providing funding for terrorism, and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people on the other side of that window. So the boy went and smashed the window, put a stop to any threat it may have posed, attempted to rescue the people behind it...and now everyone's arguing about whether he smashed it properly, and blaming him for not fixing it soon enough. Let's keep things in perspective here. Blaming Bush for the Iraq war is akin to blaming the chief of police when a high-speed pursuit leads to the death of a cop and a bystander. And yes, I'm aware there are people who really think that way, and would like to see police pursuits stopped permanently. Hopefully, you're not one of those people.
in other words by macadamia_harold · 2006-12-28 00:20 · Score: 5, Funny

it may actually take months or more for the National Archives and Records Administration to make those pages available for public consumption.

in other words, it takes the government a few months to go over every line on every page with a black marker. The pages might be declassified (but see if you can read the information!)

--
Push Button, Receive Bacon
1. Re:in other words by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 00:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  in other words, it takes the government a few months to go over every line on every page with a black marker. The pages might be declassified (but see if you can read the information!)
  
  That's not censorship! They're just making us a favor by highlighting all the good stuff.
2. Re:in other words by WgT2 · 2006-12-28 00:47 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Don't worry. Perhaps they'll release the blacked-out material as Word docs.
  
  You'll be able to read everything then!
3. Re:in other words by Charcharodon · 2006-12-28 01:14 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  ,i.in other words, it takes the government a few months to go over every line on every page with a black marker. The pages might be declassified (but see if you can read the information!)
  Yes but the real reason for the slow up is not the actual marking out things with a black marker, but the bidding process to provide the government with the correct mil-spec markers.
4. Re:in other words by amliebsch · 2006-12-28 01:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Maybe, but the real challenge will be to read them before Sandy Berger stuffs them in his pants and "misplaces" them.
  
  --
  If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
5. Re:in other words by kayditty · 2006-12-28 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  see if you can read the information!
  you can if you copy and paste.
6. Re:in other words by TheSlashaway · 2006-12-28 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43014
7. Re:in other words by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  Here's a thought: maybe if the Republicans weren't so busy turning their own ethics on and off when it suited them, they could have done something about that when they found out what had happened.
8. Re:in other words by Charcharodon · 2006-12-28 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  hahaha, great minds think a like I guess. :D Maybe they'll give me a job?!
9. Re:in other words by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Haha, I get it! Blame the Democrat! You guys are so clever. Fortunately, classified documents aren't the only things to be cleaned out of the government in January.
10. Re:in other words by mwilliamson · 2006-12-28 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  black marker...that's so old school. White-out tape + xerox is the new way of doing this.
11. Re:in other words by Woundweavr · 2006-12-28 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  This comment is confusing. It implies that Berger's removal of photocopies of documents from the National Archives prevented others from reading those documents. However, it has been proven that this is not the case. I wonder what the basis of that assumption is. Its inconceivable that a credible news outlet, such as talk radio or FoxNews, could disseminate such clearly false information.
12. Re:in other words by rock_climbing_guy · 2006-12-28 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe, but the real challenge will be to read them before Sandy Berger stuffs them in his pants and "misplaces" them.
  Did you mean Sandy Burglar?
  
  --
  Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
13. Re:in other words by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  You mean adventure-game pants really exist? Finally government scientists are showing that their research budgets pay off.
  I heard Dick Cheney can hold his breath for ten minutes.
14. Re:in other words by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  I heard Dick Cheney can hold his breath for ten minutes.
  
  Why not, the voters have been holding theirs for six years.
Too many exeptions. by packeteer · 2006-12-28 00:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

The least of acceptable exceptions is too long. If a document involves multiple agencies it wont be free. This will do nothing to calm down conspiracy theories, but it will be interesting for historians.

--
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
1. Re:Too many exeptions. by Adult+film+producer · 2006-12-28 00:24 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Well, like Bush says, the iraq adventure will only be a comma in the history books... his choice of adjective, not mine.
2. Re:Too many exeptions. by AxminsterLeuven · 2006-12-28 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  Where's the adjective in that phrase?
3. Re:Too many exeptions. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 00:40 · Score: 0
  
  Whoa! For a moment I thought I was reading Daily Kos.
  
  What is it with you moonbats? Why is everything Bush's fault? And I thought you thought you were the reality based community.
4. Re:Too many exeptions. by Vengeance · 2006-12-28 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  It's redacted, to be released in 30 years, if requested.
  
  --
  It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
5. Re:Too many exeptions. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  Surely you can't blame Bush for the things he says. The Democrats must be using mind control on him.
6. Re:Too many exeptions. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  Why is everything Bush's fault
  
  Because he was the one who goes around comparing himself to President Truman.
  
  You remember, the guy with the sign on his desk: "The Buck Stops Here".
  
  At least Truman understood that as the leader of the free world, he was responsible for it. It's sad to see the Republican party having fallen so far that it's own supporters can't even follow through on that. No wonder Barr and other real Republicans are jumping ship to the Libertarians, who at least deserve a chance to prove that "big business, little government" can still work without big business pulling the government's strings.
Finally by Psychotria · 2006-12-28 00:33 · Score: 4, Funny

The secret invasion by aliens will be revealed. I, for one, welcome our new overlords. I've been watching them for years on Lost in Space, Star Trek, V, Battlestar Gallactica and The Smurfs. I am looking forward to the secret being revealed and my release from the asylum.
1. Re:Finally by nra1871 · 2006-12-28 00:45 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  V is an excellent documentary on the Reptoids' plans for us. Don't be fooled, the best place to hide the truth is in plain sight.
2. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  In Soviet Russia, government secrets classify you!
  
  [Tumble weed rolls past, glass breaks, baby cries]
3. Re:Finally by Psychotria · 2006-12-28 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  I understand my friend. Fortunately the Reptoids' can be fooled into thinking I am a rock merely by encasing myself in foil. The egyptians almost had it right by wrapping their dead in cloth, but foil works much better. Peace be with you.
4. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  ...also the White House
5. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  Well, it was true.
6. Re:Finally by Sponge+Bath · 2006-12-28 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  ...my release from the asylum.
  
  There is no release except death.
  Now get back to posting inmate #953670
Don't expect much by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 00:49 · Score: 0

At any particular time, archiving, especially archiving the whole truth is very low priority. Involved parties tend to solve everything by employing their personal influences and relations, without written orders and most certainly without explanations. No officials ever incriminate themselves in the records. Official records are often daily propaganda-ridden and full of euphemisms. Sometimes, they are embellished to make particular official look good. So if you think there will be some major revelations and breakthroughs in historical science only because of declassifying (without very tedious research, analysis and clarifications by several living witnesses), think again.
What about? by otacon · 2006-12-28 01:06 · Score: 0, Redundant

I'd like to know exactly how the government killed Kennedy and also how they killed Martin Luther King Jr.....hold on someone is at the door...

--
In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
Call it cynicism, but... by paganizer · 2006-12-28 01:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'll be pretty shocked if anything actually of use turns up. I'll definitely try to take a look myself; I've been searching for years for some of the info on the nuclear tests done in the late 50's, as my dad was in 13 of them.
Hearing him talking about how much fun it was being in a foxhole 1.5 miles from ground zero, and digging out the rad badges and other stuff he kept as a souveneir, then seeing that there is no record to be found ANYWHERE that his unit was anywhere near where the tests were done has always fascinated me with the subject; hopefully someone will slip up and release a unit list for the Guinea Pig troops.

--
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
1. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by TodMinuit · 2006-12-28 03:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I've been searching for years for some of the info on the nuclear tests done in the late 50's, as my dad was in 13 of them.
  
  What kind of super powers does he have?
  
  --
  I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
2. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by vertinox · 2006-12-28 03:54 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  What kind of super powers does he have?
  
  Apparently to have the ability to still have children after 13 nuclear tests.
  
  --
  "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
  -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
3. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  Is anyone else as amazed as I am that things going back as far as World War II are still classified?
4. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  I have a relative who fought with the "chemical mortar battalion" in Normandy. Claims that early on in the invasion, they actually used poison gas artillery against entrenched German positions and bunkers -- firing a chemical round every now and then in between many more conventional rounds. Never heard *anything* about this in the history books, yet. (Also said his unit fired (convential) artillery at the cologne cathedral and collapsed its spire.)
5. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Good Luck on that. Amazing that the in triplicate demanding military/government had no duplicate records? Info on the tests you might get a hold of but anything connecting your father to them specifically probably went up in smoke.
6. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2006-12-28 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  I love (meaning deplore) it when common knowledge is an 'offical secret'. Example, the BT Tower, a 175m tall structure in London was an offical secret until 1994, so it didn't actually exist (Reference)... This is, of course, extremely stupid because it gives an opening for people to be prosecuted over the taking a photo of it if the government of the time happens to have a grudge against that person.
  
  --
  FGD 135
7. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  Wonder what documents. There was a major reclassification effort that has been going on through the war - documents having bee reclassified back to world war II.
  
  http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002181.html
8. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  This probably wont be relevant to your father but you might want to check out the film radio bikini. If your father is really alright I imagine he should probably consider himself very lucky.
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Radio-Bikini-Robert-Stone-IV /dp/B0000TPAMO
9. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by sayerofno · 2006-12-28 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  That's an interesting thought. My dad was a nuclear vet...I think he was in Nevada in '52 or '54. I only learned about it six months before he died. He'd never said anything about it to anyone.
  
  FWIW, he had leukemia (one of the causes of his death). I did some research after he died, and had he filed for it himself, he would have received a $75,000 payout for medical expenses as part of a government settlement. No benefit for survivors though. If your dad's still alive and is having any medical problems, you might check it out.
10. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by Seraphim1982 · 2006-12-28 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Your relative is probably thinking of the White Phosphorus shells that were very frequently used with the US 4.2" "chemical mortar". These shells produced dense white clouds that could cause burns to the unwary. The Germans frequently complained that the use of these shells was equivalent to using chemical weapons, but AFAIK no one else agreed with them.
11. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by biz0r · 2006-12-28 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, so then what kind of super powers do you have?
  
  --
  /* sig */
12. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  He's obviously adopted, you insensitive clod!
13. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by paganizer · 2006-12-28 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, not unless they found someone who looked EXACTLY like him.
  
  --
  Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
14. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by paganizer · 2006-12-28 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not exactly normal.
  And I am actually able to do some things that are sort of unusual, but whether that is the result of mutation, or just good genetics....
  
  --
  Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
15. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by paganizer · 2006-12-28 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, i got him to sign up with the VA; there is, like I said, no official record of him being there, but he managed to hang on to radiologicl badges with his name on them, and a set of travel order he had for a leave he took to visit his parents (I on the other hand have problems finding my tax records for last year), which got them to concede he was there.
  Luckily, the only problems he seems to be having is recurring skin cancer.
  he remembers one was smoky, which placed him there 31 August 1957; the government claims that troops were brought in after the test, but he was in a foxhole about 1 1/2 miles from the tower when it went off.
  
  --
  Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
16. Re:Call it cynicism, but... by RICHMON · 2007-01-05 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  People, people, PLEASE! Don't you know ANYTHING about radiation and how it affects human mutation?!? According to my excellent research data (the movie "The Hills Have Eyes"), when humans are exposed to massive radiation, it is their children that have all the mutations! Unfortunately, they tend to turn canabalistic too ... but ... hey, every advancement has a few drawbacks, no?
It's nice to see they've solved the problem by MarkusQ · 2006-12-28 01:27 · Score: 5, Informative
I was recently pleased to discover that our leaders have hit upon an ideal solution for the perennial problem of that pesky public eventually getting their hands on documents like this. It's so simple, I don't know why they didn't think of it sooner.
Don't produce the information that will make you look bad in the first place.
For instance:
- After a government report showed an increase in terrorism around the world, the administration announced it would stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism.
- A rule change at the U.S. Geological Survey restricts agency scientists from publishing or discussing research without that information first being screened by higher-ups at the agency. Special screening will be given to "findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed.
- The Treasury Department stopped producing reports showing how the benefits of tax cuts were distributed by income class.
- After the Bureau of Labor Statistics uncovered discouraging data about factory closings in the U.S., the administration announced it would stop publishing information about factory closings.
Of course, the old trick of covering up / reclassifying things is still in use as well:
- The FBI attempted to retroactively classify public information regarding the case of bureau whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, including a series of letters between the Justice Department and several senators.
- President Bush issued an executive order limiting the public's access to presidential records. The order undermined the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which required the release of those records after 12 years. Bush's order prevented the release of "68,000 pages of confidential communications between President Ronald Reagan and his advisers," some of whom had positions in the Bush Administration.
- The Federal Communications Commission blocked access to a once-public database of network outages affecting telecommunications service providers. The FCC removed public copies and exempted the information from Freedom of Information Act requests, saying it would "jeopardize national security efforts."
- The Federal Communications Commission ordered destroyed all copies of an unreleased 2004 draft report concluding that media consolidation hurt local TV news coverage, which runs counter to the administration's pro-consolidation stance.
- ...and so on.
Still, I think the new approach is much more elegant and will probably save the taxpayers a lot in the long run.
--MarkusQ P.S. Sources and many more examples here.
1. Re:It's nice to see they've solved the problem by philwx · 2006-12-28 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Good stuff. But From what I understand, the FCC didn't want people knowing about outages in case it was sabotage, because that would help them know:
  
  a) How successful they were.
  b) Where the weaknesses were (if any) in our communications system.
  
  And disrupting communications after a disaster would make that disaster much worse.
  
  Granted, this is all terrorism hysteria, but seems somewhat logical if it were to happen.
2. Re:It's nice to see they've solved the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  I have a relative who fought with the "chemical mortar battalion" in Normandy. Claims that early on in the invasion, they actually used poison gas artillery against entrenched German positions and bunkers -- firing a chemical round every now and then in between many more conventional rounds.
  
  I still haven't heard *anything* about this in the history books, yet.
3. Re:It's nice to see they've solved the problem by jafac · 2006-12-28 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Here is an additional (recently compiled) list of Bush Administration coverups:
  
  http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002237.php
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
4. Re:It's nice to see they've solved the problem by jafac · 2006-12-28 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  There's speculation on reports out there of US use of Chemical Weapons in Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq (GW1+2).
  
  And of course, there was strong evidence of CW use by the Soviets in Afghanistan and Chechnya.
  
  Interesting to know if any of this was true or not.
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
5. Re:It's nice to see they've solved the problem by pedroloco · 2006-12-28 07:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't follow that logic. Wouldn't a saboteur simply set up a televsion or radio and watch/listen to a station to determine if it goes off the air?
6. Re:It's nice to see they've solved the problem by pedroloco · 2006-12-28 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  I have heard that in WWII the Allies had chemical weapons ready to deploy to the European front in case the Germans used chemical weapons. I am not aware of any instance where these weapons were used on the battlefield in WWII by either side. Note: Unfortunately, I have not found a reference to support this statement, so if someone has a source which confirms or refutes this statement, I'm all ears.
7. Re:It's nice to see they've solved the problem by ClamIAm · 2006-12-28 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  Still, I think the new approach is much more elegant and will probably save the taxpayers a lot in the long run.
  
  I have a better idea: declassify everything after a fixed number of years, no exceptions. The UK does.
8. Re:It's nice to see they've solved the problem by X0563511 · 2007-01-01 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  The leadership of the operation might not be able to do that.
  
  Nevermind that they can have an agent do it for them and report in - that's thinking it through too deeply. Remember, in these kind of cases, the objective is to make things look scary and dangerous to make their actions seem appropriate, when in the light of objectivity they are not.
  
  Personally, while I don't agree with the actions, I can see why they would take them. That lessens the sting a small amount.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
An unnecessary secret is a failure by Bromskloss · 2006-12-28 01:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not very much for the state having secrets to its people -- the state is created by the people because they needed one, after all. If there still is a great need to keep a secret (just a small need doesn't cut it for me), then so be it, I guess. BUT, any fact kept secret without reson to do so i an abomination! There should be measures taken to ensure that everything that can be revealed is revealed (not the other way around).

I'm not talking specifically about the USA here -- I'm not an american -- but the same thing applies to any state.

--
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
1. Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure by sbben · 2006-12-28 01:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There should be measures taken to ensure that everything that can be revealed is revealed And there are such measures! And you are looking at them. It is required that US documents be declassified after a certain period of time. That's the point of an article like this.
  
  What I think you meant is why are secrets ever kept in the first place. Well, for very good reason. You can't have military plans circulating weeks before an attack can you. Secrets are there for good reason. The public can't be trusted with everything. This is the very same reason why the US doesn't use a popular vote to elect its president. The electoral college was put into place to keep too much power being placed on the layman.
2. Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure by GigsVT · 2006-12-28 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  The electoral college was put into place to keep too much power being placed on the layman.
  
  What?!?
  
  The only reason it uses delegations was because they didn't have things like communications back when. The electoral college gives each person's vote more power, because they are more likely to be the deciding vote on a smaller segment of the population, than the entire population at large (i.e. 50 votes could be "the one that mattered" instead of only 1 vote nationwide).
  
  Now, if you were talking about our representative form of government, with congress and senate, that would make your point a lot better.
  
  --
  I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
3. Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure by um...+Lucas · 2006-12-28 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Except that the members of the electoral college aren't necessarily bound to vote in the way that the constituents in their district voted. Which serves as a "buffer", i suppose, so that if everyone wanted to elect an ax-murderer who won the majority of votes, the electoral college could still nix it. So yes, the electoral college had a place due to lack of communications, but it also serves other rolls as well..
4. Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure by xappax · 2006-12-28 03:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Secrets are there for good reason. The public can't be trusted with everything.
  
  The ability to keep secrets from the public is a form of power. This power can be used sparingly and responsibly - like your example of keeping battle plans secret before the battle. I don't think anyone would claim that absolute transparency should be expected - I don't want the nuclear launch procedures and authentication information to be public information!
  
  Like most forms power, the ability to keep secrets can also be exploited and abused for the benefit of those in power. The ability to keep documents detailing your wrongdoings out of the public eye empowers you to commit even greater and more brazen wrongdoings without fear of reprisal - nobody will know until it's too late.
  
  I'm of the opinion that government officials tend to abuse and exploit the power granted to them most of the time, and we should therefore be working to strip them of all power that's not absolutely necessary for the functioning of society. While a limited power of secrecy is understandable, the degree of power that officials have over information today is far, far beyond what is beneficial to society.
  
  The trouble is that although the government infrastructure which keeps things secret no longer serves the interest of the public, it does serve the interest of the vast majority of our government officials. I suspect that it will take a vast, radical change to the structure and philosophy of our government before we can expect officials to voluntarily relinquish the power which insulates them all from the repercussions of their actions.
5. Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure by freedom_india · 2006-12-28 05:17 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The public can't be trusted with everything. This is the very same reason why the US doesn't use a popular vote to elect its president. The electoral college was put into place to keep too much power being placed on the layman.
  Who decides who is the Public? The elected president, or the King? You seem to be like Dick Cheney, who thinks Executive power is absolute and anything NOT specified in the constituion belongs to the President by Right. Which includes detention of US citizens without trial in Gitmo, and saying to Geneva Conventions : "Screw you!"
  It is the paranoid and powerless and weak who think like you and Dick Cheney.
  During the second world war, just before the Normandy Invasion, Allied reporters were briefed in FULL by Eisinowher (the then commanding C-in-C). He told them exactly when and where the invastion would happen, but told them it is their responsibility to keep it secret. The reporters cried "dirty pool", but kept their mouths shut UNTIL the invasion had taken place. No One, i mean NO ONE sold the secrets to the Enemy. FFW to 3 years ago, and the families of the troops were offiically NOT told about their spouses deployment to Iraq. They were just told (even though it was WELL known) that they are going to fight abroad.
  Switzerland is a land of direct votings and so are a few EU countries. They don't hide anything from the public. If you decide the public is a bunch of loose tongues, then remember three of the five fingers point at yourself when you say that.
  May God bless your corrupt republican soul. No wonder you guys had your asses whipped (to full froth) in the past election.
  
  --
  "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
6. Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure by cdrguru · 2006-12-28 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  During the second world war, just before the Normandy Invasion, Allied reporters were briefed in FULL by Eisinowher (the then commanding C-in-C). He told them exactly when and where the invastion would happen, but told them it is their responsibility to keep it secret. The reporters cried "dirty pool", but kept their mouths shut UNTIL the invasion had taken place. No One, i mean NO ONE sold the secrets to the Enemy. FFW to 3 years ago, and the families of the troops were offiically NOT told about their spouses deployment to Iraq. They were just told (even though it was WELL known) that they are going to fight abroad.
  
  Ha ha ha. Very good joke. OK, can anyone think of a single "journalist" that wouldn't spill the beans if they had an "exclusive" or "scoop" like the Normandy invasion? Do you think CNN has the ethics to kill a story based on "it isn't in the country's best interest?"
  
  What about the current reporting based on a phony Iraqi policeman about executions in Iraq outside a mosque? It was reported by the US press to make the US Army look bad - and when the "evidence" turns out to be faked and the "source" doesn't exist, does anyone report that fact? No, they have moved on.
  
  In the 1940's the press had some idea of "responsibility". In the Gulf war (Desert Storm) the press had to be managed closely because otherwise they would be reporting plans to the enemy. There is no "responsibility". There are no "ethics". They are out to make a buck and selling out the US or making the US look bad sells advertising space.
  
  We've put ourselves into this situation. The secrets are there because the "public" cannot be told. What percentage of the "public" today is Muslim and would always come down on the side of Muslims vs. the US? No, we let people into the US that place the interests of foreign organizations ahead of those of the US. We have one now as a congressman who is going to try to take the oath of office on a Quran.
7. Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure by chmod+u+s · 2006-12-28 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  We've put ourselves into this situation. The secrets are there because the "public" cannot be told. What percentage of the "public" today is Muslim and would always come down on the side of Muslims vs. the US? No, we let people into the US that place the interests of foreign organizations ahead of those of the US. We have one now as a congressman who is going to try to take the oath of office on a Quran. Alarmist. Who gives two sh**s about what book they are using when they swear an oath of office? It is a formality. And frankly if he is a good muslim - I'd prefer he swear on something he holds dear. Considering the graft and corruption in the federal government I'd say swearing on the bible doesn't seem to amount to much.
  
  I know lots of good muslims who are not fundamentalists. Don't let that word get politically charged like "terrorist" already has - don't give it the power to make you stop thinking critically.
8. Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure by larry+bagina · 2006-12-28 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Delegation was used because the emphasis was on the noun in the phrase "United States".
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
9. Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure by sbben · 2006-12-28 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Never mind the fact that you tried to classify my political views and beliefs by reading less than 500 words I wrote on slashdot (of all places), you sir are just plain rude.
  
  I gave a simply counterpoint to the first claim well before you started rambling on about what the definition of 'public' is.
  No One, i mean NO ONE sold the secrets to the Enemy Whether or not this story is even true I couldn't say, we didn't go over that one in US history last year. But what I do know is that 'Allied reporters' certainly do not constitute the full population and therefor he was still keeping it secret from the population (as most people call the governed people the population). No? Try not to stereotype so much in your next response please.
  
  Oh and by the way,
  You seem to be like Dick Cheney, who thinks Executive power is absolute and anything NOT specified in the constituion belongs to the President by Right all power not specifically granted or denied by the constitution goes to the state I believe.
10. Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure by rtechie · 2006-12-28 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  You can't have military plans circulating weeks before an attack can you. Secrets are there for good reason.
  
  While I hate to be snide, this is simply terribly naive. The military (for example) conceals MUCH more than is necessary for any practical sense of security. For example, why won't they give details about attacks AFTER they've occurred (like how many bombs were dropped and what kind and how many people were killed). Why are the financial details of military contracts kept hidden? How is national security compromised if it's revealed that the military spent $100 on a widget rather than the market proce of $10 a widget?
  
  The fact is that "national security" is increasingly used as a way for government officials to conceal incompetence and corruption. This has gotten considerably worse during the Bush administration, widely regarded as the most opaque administration ever.
  
  The public can't be trusted with everything.
  
  I'm of the opinion that oversight by the public, flawed though it may be, is infinitely preferable to no oversight whatsoever. Look at Guantanamo Bay or the "rendition" program to see a total lack of oversight in action.
11. Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure by GigsVT · 2006-12-28 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  It's not clear that was ever an intended function, and it's never been used that way.
  
  The electors would be from the ax-murderers party. They would vote for the ax-murderer.
  
  You do realize the electors are chosen by the party of the winning candidate, right? They aren't some random body of people.
  
  --
  I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
12. Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure by freedom_india · 2006-12-29 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  While i apologize for not reading your article in its entirety, i beg to differ on your following statement:
  all power not specifically granted or denied by the constitution goes to the state I believe.
  The Tenth amendment explicitly states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
  The ninth Amendment stated explicitly: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
  They mean the PEOPLE retain the rights NOT granted to the Executive by the constitution explcitly.
  They do NOT mean that the executive can usurp the power granted to the people by the Founders (i call them the Ancients)
  The Elders were wise and forseeing: They knew a single-digit IQ president, covered by a hyper-IQ, but self-centered, secretive Vice President would try to usurp ALL the powers for himself. That is why they made these amendments.
  
  --
  "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
"Where is the outrage? Where is the horror?" by Pink+Tinkletini · 2006-12-28 01:28 · Score: 1

I know you didn't really ask, but right here. Scroll down to "Weekly Carnage."

--
And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
Released... as Confetti by Junior+J.+Junior+III · 2006-12-28 01:29 · Score: 1, Funny

So that's where all that NYE confetti comes from! I always wondered. Thanks, Feds! Party on!

--
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
UFOs!!!!!!! by curtisk · 2006-12-28 01:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

Wow. The 25 most used search terms in the last month at the CIA's FOIA document request.
UFOs are at the top!
Considering the rest of that list, its very interesting how pervasive the questions around UFOs are. Sadly, sasquatch has fallen out of public favor...

--
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
1. Re:UFOs!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  What does this say about the American public? Think for a moment of some of the real matters in the country that might merit investigation. It seems the kooks and gullibles vastly outnumber the rational inquirers ... no wonder our President is getting guidance from "God" and dismissing science, evidence, and reason in general. It just shows we have a real representative government.
2. Re:UFOs!!!!!!! by Lord+Kano · 2006-12-28 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  What does this say about the American public?
  
  It says that the people don't trust out government to tell us the truth.
  
  It says that millions of Americans have witnessed arial phenomena that they simply don't believe were swamp gas, weather balloons or the planet venus.
  
  Think for a moment of some of the real matters in the country that might merit investigation.
  
  How dare people find different things important than you, right?
  
  LK
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
3. Re:UFOs!!!!!!! by zCyl · 2006-12-28 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. The 25 most used search terms in the last month at the CIA's FOIA document request.
  
  I bet with a little organized effort, we could easily put something more politically humorous at the top of that list. :)
4. Re:UFOs!!!!!!! by lawpoop · 2006-12-28 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  What did they call BJs back in the forties and fifties?
  
  --
  Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
  -- Pablo Picasso
5. Re:UFOs!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-29 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently they called them "united fruit company".
  
  Seriously though, it's on the search list. I think a "WTF" is in order.
great! by dead.phoenix.616 · 2006-12-28 02:09 · Score: 0

now we maybe able to find out who actually shot JFK,
and if lucky enough, the where-abouts of Elvis too!
*duck*

--
GUI == Graphical User Interference
What do they have to do with each other? by Cigarra · 2006-12-28 02:10 · Score: 1

Yeah, OT, but I'm really sick and tired of how happily these comparisons go on and on, about how there are more dead soldiers in Iraq than 9/11 victims.

Please, repeat after me:
Iraq had NOTHING TO DO with the 9/11 attacks. Nothing at all.

--
I don't have a sig.
1. Re:What do they have to do with each other? by Guuge · 2006-12-28 03:06 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Every history book on the Iraq War is going to mention 9/11, just as every history of World War I mentions Francis Ferdinand. The plain truth is that 9/11 was used to stir up fanatical nationalism and loyalty to the central government, which set the stage for the abuses of power that led to the Iraq War. I'm not saying that 9/11 was necessary for Bush's plan; it was simply available. Similarly, the assassination of Francis Ferdinand was not necessary for WWI to ignite.
  I suppose comparing the Iraq War to 9/11 shows how we've become that which we despise.
2. Re:What do they have to do with each other? by c_forq · 2006-12-28 04:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Has everyone forgotten our invasion of Afghanistan? Seriously, after 9/11 the push was to Afghanistan and NO ONE protested. Before the Iraq war millions protested, with some cities having the largest protests in their entire history Iraq's debacle with the UN inspectors set off the start to invading Iraq, and than Saddam kept bluffing and refusing to say he didn't have chemical weapons or to allow UN inspections to resume. I swear people are trying to rewrite current history to make Iraq immediately after 9/11 and completely caused by 9/11. Maybe that works better for the conspiracy theories, but it doesn't really fit the reality I lived through.
  
  --
  Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
3. Re:What do they have to do with each other? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  ...or to allow UN inspections to resume
  
  cite please
4. Re:What do they have to do with each other? by Bent+Mind · 2006-12-28 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, after 9/11 the push was to Afghanistan and NO ONE protested.
  
  As I recall, most people were still in shock at that time. Afghanistan wasn't really presented as an invasion. The news said we were going into Afghanistan to find the mastermind behind 9/11, not to invade the country or overthrow the government. When it came to bombing, most people that I talked to at the time didn't really see the point. The country had already been throughly bombed. We were just bombing rubble. Adding to that, it was a quick invasion. We moved on to Iraq before most people really noticed.
  
  --
  Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
5. Re:What do they have to do with each other? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  and than Saddam kept bluffing and refusing to say he didn't have chemical weapons or to allow UN inspections to resume.
  
  When exactly was he bluffing? And he did allow inspectors to resume inspections, the US was the one to kick them out.
  
  On the other hand, you see forged documents presented as evidence, CIA infiltration of the inspectors, discredited claims of WMD activities that simply never happened. And yet when I do a google search today on Iraq WMD, the first site I get to is not one that shows a good summary or detailed accounting of all the WMD Iraq war propaganda, but rather one that claims that Iraq transferred all its WMD to Syria in ambulances. I guess as long as there is a shadow of a doubt, even if unreasonable, then the politicians can keep their sheep in the flock.
  
  What's next... oh ya... blame the democrats for losing Iraq to chaos because they won't approve a troop increase that Bush/Rumsfeld have been saying we didn't need for the last 4 years. Just like how we lost Vietnam because we didn't spend enough resources down that black hole. Or how we had to settle for a draw in Korea, because that wimp Truman wouldn't nuke China. Those fucking cowards... can't just suck it up and destroy the world in order to achieve that all important victory.
6. Re:What do they have to do with each other? by Rone · 2006-12-28 10:24 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Seriously, after 9/11 the push was to Afghanistan and NO ONE protested.
  
  What version of CNN were you watching?
  
  IIRC, most of the pundits at the time were doom-and-glooming the US' plans to take Bin Laden from Afghanistan by force. Although they tried to hide it through sheer quantity of verbiage, the underlying message seemed to be, "How can the lowly US POSSIBLY succeed where the mighty Soviets failed for so many years?"
  
  In fact, the pre-Afghanistan protests were what enabled GW to get a free pass (initially) on Iraq from his marginally-committed supporters (e.g. me). Their reaction to seeing the moaning and wailing over Afghanistan soured them so completely to anti-war arguments (i.e. "What war won't these idiots protest against?") that they stopped listening to EVERY anti-Iraq argument, even those that might have been backed up by pragmatism and solid reasoning. That in turn contributed (if not caused) Kerry to lose his bid for the presidency in 2004. If he'd said, "Many wars are just, but THIS one (Iraq) is not", then he probably would have gotten enough votes to flip the balance in his favor. Instead, he let the election get turned into yet another referendum on Vietnam and war in general, and was defeated for it.
  
  Bah. Bush went into both Afghanistan and Iraq without a good understanding of the distinct cultural pressures involved in each country. He got lucky in Afghanistan (taking out the Taliban "regulars" enabled the masses to establish a sort-of-democratic government), but had his ass handed to him in Iraq, where the masses appear to be more interested in killing each other (Shi'a) or continuing their own private apartheid (Sunni) than establishing an even remotely democratic government.
7. Re:What do they have to do with each other? by Rone · 2006-12-28 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  And he did allow inspectors to resume inspections, the US was the one to kick them out
  
  Cite?
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that Saddam did want WMDs so he could bully neighboring countries, and was trying to secretly rebuild his capacity after destroying it following his slapped-down invasion of Kuwait. His loyal scientists, trying to escape the wrath of his sons and their woodchipper, fabricated glowing reports of their progress, which the US intercepted and overreacted to (assuming that the motives of the Bush administration were entirely pure).
  
  If Saddam had wanted to simply maintain the appearance of having WMDs without actually having them, he was an absolute moron about how he went about it. He could have postured and posed as he was doing during that time period, then "accidentally" let a detailed inventory list (executive summary: "we ain't got shit") fall into the hands of the most convenient CIA operative, and the US would have probably found more interesting things to do than invade the country (again, assuming that the motives of the Bush administration were entirely pure here).
  
  If Saddam didn't want WMDs, then why did he put so many stumbling blocks in front of the inspection teams sent to verify that he didn't have any? Just get them in, show them whatever they want to see, and wave goodbye to them at the airport as they leave. Instead, he whined and whined about "CIA infiltration" and "national security issues" as justification for preventing the inspection teams from getting into his Presidential Palaces and other sites, but if there were no WMD-related materials there, what the hell else would there be to hide? His taste in decor? Saddam's military was already known to be strong enough to keep belligerent neighbors at bay, and as we've seen in interviews with Hans Blix in recent years, Blix didn't care about petty US-Iraq bickering, and likely would have taken steps to weed out any "CIA infiltrators" from his inspection teams, as their presence would only have made his job harder.
the date is wrong? by name*censored* · 2006-12-28 02:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

uh, if they're being declassified at exactly the start of the new year(ie, 1 second after 11:59:59 12/31), then wouldn't that mean that they're ACTUALLY being declassified on the 1/1? The new day actually begins at 00:00:00...
Also with this september 11/conspiracy theory/craziness spin that this thread has taken... If they were clever enough to blow up (their own) building and cover it up, surely they would be clever enough to 1) Do a good job of covering it up (recycled argument from moon landing conspiracy) 2) Pick something that wasn't so difficult to orchestrate (rigging an inner city building with explosives with no credible witnesses willing to testify) eg, a chemical attack (like the 95 subway thing), a car/truck-bomb (terrorists seem to like those), or attacks on foreign US embassies. 3) Pick something that more strongly supports attacking Iraq - they had to do an AWFUL lot of fancy footwork to get from "an afghani terrorist blowing up a US building" to "attack a regime which had little to do with 9/11 (although still guilty of terrible atrocities)" 4) Forget trying to attack anything.. the government spin engine is an incredibly powerful one, it would be just as easy to justify a war with no 9/11 than having to orchestrate a 9/11 attack AND THEN justify a war with it.
It's a little ignorant to say what SHOULD happen and compare it to what DID happen, considering there are thousands of variables involved that we'll never accurately know (how much fuel the plane had, its exact speed, its exact mass, the exact condition of the building, its weight load, its natural fault lines, the fault lines created by the impact of the plane, other environmental elements etc etc etc). Plus, if the conspirators didn't expect it to fall over (enough to put use secondary explosives, which would be a big giveaway) just from a plane crash, then why would they think that we wouldn't figure it out? There are enough demolition experts out there that it would be a glaring omission to ignore the fact that the experts would notice that a plane couldn't do that on it's own. It's much like how you cannot see the stars in the background of the moonwalk, it's too obvious for such a big conspiracy to miss, the "moon's reflection makes too much contrast" argument is so weak that it must be true. It's much more sensible to disregard the conspiracy given that it's unnecessary and far too difficult a conspiracy to organise.

--
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
1. Re:the date is wrong? by k1e0x · 2006-12-28 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, I like conspiracy theories, as a hobby or say fictional reading, but the 9/11 one (IE that America did it) is kind of weak. My biggest reason is.. if we wanted to attack our own people.. why couldn't we just hire terrorists to fly planes into buildings? Make 9/11 "as seen on TV" with different puppeteers pulling the strings..
  
  Things still could have happned phisicaly exactally like the offical story and it can *still* be a conspiracy. Since the people proposing the conspiracy can't grasp that, I dont believe in any of em.
  
  --
  Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
2. Re:the date is wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  9/11 goes far deeper then just an excuse to go to war with Iraq. Its also an excuse to strip the American public of their rights and give even more power to government for the future, not to mention a HUGE money making scheme for all those involved.
  
  Why did the US Government pick something "so difficult" to orchestrate? Simple, they took a page right out of the Hilter's book:
  
  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
  
  "Hitler wrote in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):
  
  All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ... "
  
  Causing the collapse of the World Trade Center probably had just as much to do with losing an American Icon then losing American lives. If they had instead decided to use chemical weapons in a subway and killed just as many people it would be far more difficult to get the backing of the people to go to war, and strip their rights, not to mention they couldn't make any money doing it. Cause a huge loss of life AND lose an icon at the same time and it'll be a cake walk to do anything you want given the general American attitude.
  
  It worked like a charm too.
3. Re:the date is wrong? by khallow · 2006-12-28 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  It worked like a charm too.
  
  If you recall, Hitler almost certainly burned the Reichstag. That would require two or so people and very little involvement on the part of government. 9/11 would have required a lot more conspirators.
  
  Causing the collapse of the World Trade Center probably had just as much to do with losing an American Icon then losing American lives. If they had instead decided to use chemical weapons in a subway and killed just as many people it would be far more difficult to get the backing of the people to go to war, and strip their rights, not to mention they couldn't make any money doing it. Cause a huge loss of life AND lose an icon at the same time and it'll be a cake walk to do anything you want given the general American attitude.
  Right. My take is that you just lost all credibility here. A first time, chemical weapons attack is far scarier to the general public than 9/11. The only thing more effective would have been setting a nuke off which "they" also didn't do. So let's look at this. We have a hard to work strategy involving four planes (even if the planes didn't go where they supposedly went, you still have to eliminate the planes, the crew, and the passengers). If the building already had explosives attached to the supports as you allege, then why not have that be the basis of the attack? Far less risk and you accomplish the same thing. Your theory requires that the perpetrators would chose a dangerous and very risky approach over far simpler and less risky approaches. Finally, the clever villians of this story fail to exploit this attack. They get their wars, but not the power. An enemy this effective would not settle for so little.
4. Re:the date is wrong? by lawpoop · 2006-12-28 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  I think the 9/11 conspiracy theorists argue that the reason 'they' chose to bring down the towers was the Big Lie propaganda technique.
  
  In 1993, Ramzi Yousef set off a truck bomb in the basement of the world trade center, and the US public collectively yawned. Then, in 1995, Timothy McVeigh brought down the Murrah Federal building in Kansas City, and the US public said "Gosh, those white supremacist loners are nutty. Maybe we should start tracking sales of large amounts of fertilizer." Then, in 2001, airplanes hit the pentagon, the two towers, and one crashed in Pennsylvania, presumably headed for the White House. The entire nation went into a panic attack, and had PTSD for months afterwards. People talked about nuking the entire middle east, killing all the towel heads, and taking the oil. Almost overnight, the patriot act was made into law with little discussion. Programs such as domestic phone call monitoring, NSA wiretaps, and Total Information Awareness were started. Apparently, the two earlier attacks were not spectacular enough to warrant such a response, but most recent ones were.
  
  There may have been easier false flag operations to pull off, but if you a conspiracist, the real agenda is totalitarianism and the removal of civil rights. Only the 9/11 attacks were spectacular enough to provide sufficient political cover to advance the agenda.
  
  --
  Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
  -- Pablo Picasso
predictions on what the docs might say by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 02:25 · Score: 0

1) the government is controlled by illuminati
2) Aliens from outer space did land in Rosswell, and a crash was faked in order to have
them stay
3) John Lennon and Elvis are alive and well in a secret government program
Yes Minister by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 03:04 · Score: 1, Insightful

Jim: How am I going to explain the missing documents to the Mail?
Sir Humphrey: Well this is what we normally do in, circumstances like these. [hands over a file]
Jim: [reading] This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, a few others lost in the flood of 1967. [to Humphrey] Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?
Sir Humphrey: No a marvellous winter, we lost no end of embarrassing files.
Jim: [reading] Some records which went astray in the move to London, and others when the War Office was incorporated in the Ministry of Defence, and the normal withdrawal of papers whose publication could give grounds for an action for liable or breach of confidence, or cause embarrassment to friendly governments. [to Humphrey] Well that's pretty comprehensive. How many does that normally leave for them to look at? [Humphrey says nothing] How many does that actually leave? About a hundred? Fifty? Ten? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Zero?
Sir Humphrey: Yes Minister.
How is that "will" to be understood? by Opportunist · 2006-12-28 03:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is it a will as in "they will do it", or one as in "they should, but will come up with a reason not to do it"?

I've seen my share of US politics lately, so I'm compelled to ask.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How long until ... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 03:25 · Score: 0

we see a new Google search called Google Classified?
Mod parent up! by Dark_Gravity · 2006-12-28 03:36 · Score: 1

Who moderated the parent off-topic? Grow a sense of humor! The parent post is hilarious.

--
Bring back Sirius Punk!
Who Shot JFK by dwayner79 · 2006-12-28 03:38 · Score: 1

That's what I want to know. Shouldn't those be in the mix?

--
Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
1. Re:Who Shot JFK by Klaus_1250 · 2006-12-28 04:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  AFAIK you'll need to wait at least another 10 years. (didn't bookmark the story about it, sorry) But, do you really think they will ever release the truth about the JFK assassination? Or that the how and why is properly documented? I would be surprised. My only question is if LBJ knew about it.
  
  --
  It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
2. Re:Who Shot JFK by geekoid · 2006-12-28 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Oswald.
  
  Next question?
  
  Please, every piece of evidince points to Oswald pulling the trigger.
  If there is any secret there, it is "What motivated Oswald to do it."
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
KEEP MODDED UP PLEASE by macdaddy · 2006-12-28 03:40 · Score: 1

If it was possible to mod you even higher I would.
1. Re:KEEP MODDED UP PLEASE by kalirion · 2006-12-28 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  At the moment, he only has +3 Informative. There's room for another mod in there. I'm guessing you saw the Karma bonus or something. I don't think Karma bonuses affect how much a post can be modded.
Every time they do this by fuckingsound · 2006-12-28 03:47 · Score: 1

they forget to say that all except 1 of the hundreds of millions of pages contain only left parenthesis and that they can sneakily use the plural 'secrets' because it is the first two fourths of a lisp hash function used on the string "Martha, I love the president's new hankercheif, but he still smells stinky."
Media Apathy by MrSteveSD · 2006-12-28 04:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually I am always amazed at the amount of incredibly damaging stuff that gets released in the US. For example, things like Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods ), which although never carried out, was a plan to stage terrorist attacks on US assets and blame it on Cuba as an excuse for war.

Then there are minutes of meetings that provide evidence of war crimes by certain individuals. For example, minutes were released of Henry Kissinger saying "Anything that flies on anything that moves" , which were his bombing orders for Cambodia. If they had evidence like that against Milosevic, his trial would have been over within days.

Fortunately these damning revelations are largely ignored by the US media. If they were not, perhaps they would stop releasing them in the first place.
1. Re:Media Apathy by c6gunner · 2006-12-28 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  For example, minutes were released of Henry Kissinger saying "Anything that flies on anything that moves" , which were his bombing orders for Cambodia. If they had evidence like that against Milosevic, his trial would have been over within days.
  Considering that the only genocide in Canbodia was the one carried out by the Khmer Rouge, do you suppose that you might be taking things out of context a wee bit?
2. Re:Media Apathy by raind · 2006-12-28 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Henry is responsible for alot of bad things: http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html
  
  --
  Get up!
3. Re:Media Apathy by MrSteveSD · 2006-12-28 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  "Anything that flies on anything that moves" was said in the context of bombing Cambodia (illegally). Some 100,000 Cambodians were killed with several million made homeless. The fact that even worse carnage came later does not excuse the US bombing.
  
  In fact, despite the Khmer Rouge/Pol Pot being communist, completely insane, and totally murderous, the US and China both supported the regime, due to its anti-Soviet/anti-Vietnamese stance. Under the US/Chinese-Supported Khmer Rouge regime, up to 2 million Cambodians died. It should be noted that there are also indications that British SAS troops were involved in training Cambodian troops.
4. Re:Media Apathy by zen-theorist · 2006-12-28 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  damaging stuff? i read about operation northwoods: this is state-sponsored terrorism by the US govt on its own citizens. too bad terrorism wasnt a buzzword back then.
5. Re:Media Apathy by evilviper · 2006-12-28 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  which although never carried out, was a plan to stage terrorist attacks on US assets and blame it on Cuba as an excuse for war.
  
  The plan was strongly focused on SIMULATED terrorist attacks, not real casualities. And when it was decided that it would be too difficult to fake deaths, the plan was, of course, thrown out.
  
  Fortunately these damning revelations are largely ignored by the US media.
  
  No, they aren't. They're taken in context by the mainstream media, and only blown out of proportion by individuals with an agenda, like yourself.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
6. Re:Media Apathy by MrSteveSD · 2006-12-29 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  The plan was strongly focused on SIMULATED terrorist attacks, not real causalities The document actually does suggest sinking a real U.S. ship, which would have resulted in US Navy casualties. There was also a suggestion of the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees. So while mostly it was about faking things, there was the potential for real casualties. And anyway, even if all the plans involved faking deaths (which they did not) surely lying to the public and sending enthusiastic twenty-somethings off to die based on those lies, is quite bad enough.
  
  No, they aren't. They're taken in context by the mainstream media, and only blown out of proportion by individuals with an agenda, like yourself.
  
  I don't really think the media pay much attention at all to most of these revelations, which is why people look at you quizzically when you mention things like COINTELPRO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro). Is being a bit outraged at the idea of staging fake/real terrorist attacks on the US in order to justify a war against Cuba really "blowing things out of proportion"?
7. Re:Media Apathy by evilviper · 2006-12-29 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  I don't really think the media pay much attention at all to most of these revelations, which is why people look at you quizzically when you mention things like COINTELPRO
  
  The public at large doesn't tend to remember code-names in general.
  
  Ask people if they think the FBI infiltrates and disrupts political organizations and the like, and I'm sure the majority of the public at large will nod accordingly...
  
  There has been plenty of press about the FBI's more recent, post 9/11 undercover operations, trying to prompt political organizations to become violent.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
8. Re:Media Apathy by c6gunner · 2007-01-02 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, I see. So, as usual, it's blame the US time. Pol Pot wasn't responsible for his crimes! It all only happened because Bush stole the election!
  
  Thanks, I needed a laugh. Where did you read the bit about the SAS, anyway? PRAVDA?
9. Re:Media Apathy by MrSteveSD · 2007-01-02 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, I see. So, as usual, it's blame the US time. Pol Pot wasn't responsible for his crimes!
  
  In my post I said that Pol Pot was "completely insane, and totally murderous", so I was hardly claiming he wasn't responsible for his crimes. What you have done is exaggerate/distort my argument to make it look ridiculous and therefore easier to defeat. This kind of attack is commonly known as a "Straw Man" argument.
  
  Pol Pot was certainly responsible for his actions. However, the US, China and other countries that supported him are also responsible for their actions. i.e. Knowingly supporting a mass murderer.
  
  Thanks, I needed a laugh. Where did you read the bit about the SAS, anyway? PRAVDA?
  
  There were lots of reports about it over the years and lots of denials in Parliament. It eventually came out in Parliament in 1991. Here is an extract from Hansard (it's the official source for Parlimentary discussions).
  
  "I confirm that there is no British Government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with the Khmer Rouge forces or those allied to them."
  
  That may have been true on 9 October 1990, but what the Prime Minister omitted to say was that we had been training them up to a year before that. The phrase--the wording is always identical-- "or those allied to them"
  
  appeared in a succession of ministerial letters around that time. The Foreign Secretary and various other Ministers wrote that, and they all did so in the knowledge that the training had been going on and had stopped only just before that. That is being rather economical with the truth.
  
  Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : Lying.
  
  And here is the link. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newh tml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=sa%20khmer%20 roug&ALL=SAS%20khmer%20rouge&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORI ES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=Deb ate-10_spnew8&URL=/pa/cm199091/cmhansrd/1991-07-22 /Debate-10.html#Debate-10_spnew8
  
  Did the idea of a foreign power helping a nasty regime seem so unbelievable to you? History is littered with examples. e.g. The CIA trained the brutal SAVAK secret police in Iran under the Shah and the Iraqis have just hung a mass murderer (Saddam Hussein) who was supported by the west for many years. The list is very long.
Google Classified Secrets Engine by Buzz_Litebeer · 2006-12-28 04:12 · Score: 1

I cannot wait for google to index this stuff!

--
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
oooh millions of pages of mindlessly boring crap by sgt.greywar · 2006-12-28 04:41 · Score: 1

Good grief I have had a TS/SCI clearance and been active inthe intel community for 15 years and I can't think of a single "secret" that I have seen that was actually worth reading. The government doesn't classify embarassing things, they classify ways and means for the most part and that stuff is deadly dull. Read through an electronic threat manual or case notation file for some "thilling" TS material. Stamp "secret" on a piece of use toilet paper and conspiracy theorists come running to "analyze" the crap stains on it.

--
Laborare Est Orare
Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 04:42 · Score: 0

Amazing how a simple comment about a government function can lead to all this bitterness and anger...compare our government to others currently in power and in history you will be happy to find out the USA is still great...enjoy you anger and get a life!
Expected response to information request by haggie · 2006-12-28 05:11 · Score: 2, Funny

"In order to protect our children and prevent terrorist attacks, the information you requested has been classified. In addition, if you aren't doing anything illegal, you don't need this information anyway. You aren't doing anything illegal, are you?"
Mod Parent Troll by crabpeople · 2006-12-28 05:11 · Score: 1

Yeah wow with all that proof you've given how could anyone NOT be convinced?

People like you hate chomsky because he has a history of critizing/exposing american foreign policy to the world. Chomsky owns EVERYONE who he debates with. He is a cunning linguist and a maverick political thinker. Stop being so jealous of chomsky ok mr internet troll?

--
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
2007 = Sputnik + 50 by spaceyhackerlady · 2006-12-28 05:13 · Score: 1

I've been looking forward to 2007 for a while, since it's 50 years since Sputnik 1, and lots of stuff gets declassified after 50 years. Witness the enormous amount of new WW2 material in the 1990s. Let's see some real dirt!
The U.S. government isn't the only one with secrets.
...laura
1. Re:2007 = Sputnik + 50 by TeflonTB · 2006-12-28 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing gets declassified after 50 years. That would be two 25 year segments. And most stuff is exempt from the 25 year rule :)
elvis by rucs_hack · 2006-12-28 05:22 · Score: 2, Funny

At last, we shall discover which aliens took elvis :-)

I can see what will happen though

govt: Here you go, everything we know about aliens, i.e, they haven't been here.

Conspiracists: Ah yes, but you'd say that wouldn't you...

govt: No really, it's true, look, it's got official stamps and everything.

Conspiracists: Well that may be so, but if we believe you, our million dollar book and convention industry will go down the pan [koff], ah no, we mean that you'll have succeeded in hiding the truth.

govt: ok, let us explain this again [sounds of guns being loaded]..
um..... by ClioCJS · 2006-12-28 05:24 · Score: 2, Informative

A lot of us "conspiracy theorists" think that that's exactly what they did. Hire those terrorists. Bin Laden has been paid by the C.I.A. in the past, and the C.I.A. has not proven itself to be a trustworthy agency.
http://del.icio.us/ClintJCL/911 http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/?s=911

--
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
1. Re:um..... by k1e0x · 2006-12-28 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  (Score:2, Informative?)
  
  Well.. at least somebodys thinking.. hehe.
  
  --
  Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
How can you know i documents are not missing ? by gargamelo · 2006-12-28 05:25 · Score: 1

I would not expect any large revelations from the cold war era. What if someone just eats up a report they dont want to leak or like in the 7 World Trade Center i.ex
I dont think CIA,FBI would like to go on public that yeah secret papers have blown up or is out in the streets, oh and btw they used to give paychecks to the beard guys who did it ;-)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/05/archive/ main316911.shtml

"Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors.
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Anyway: digitally created and signed documents and stored that way could in the future be a problem if haxored, it could create some histeria under cirtain scenarios. imagine the boredom to use those type machines.
you're a pussy by ClioCJS · 2006-12-28 05:27 · Score: 1

Because it will never BE in a history book, if you are too much of a pussy to ever post about it in a non-anonymous way. I almost think you are a shill of some sorts, but I'm not sure of what your agenda may be.

--
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
JFK docs by teal_ · 2006-12-28 05:28 · Score: 1

I'm looking forward to when the Warren Commission's files on the JFK assassination are declassified. I hope to live till then, I believe it's sometime in the 2030's.
1. Re:JFK docs by IHC+Navistar · 2006-12-28 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  The only document you are probably gonna get is a lipstick-smeared cocktail napkin with "Oswald did it" scribbled on it.
  
  It's not hard to imagine a pre-deadling file shredding frenzy on a scale that would make Enron look like the Salvation Army.
  
  --
  Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
MOD PARENT UP by throbbingbrain.com · 2006-12-28 05:42 · Score: 1

That link should have been in the article summary.

Everyone else, RTFEO (read the freakin executive order) before posting.
1. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  Yep. They give opinions. Horrible, frightening stuff, isn't it? I suggest we start a good ol' Hard Left re-education camp for 'em with public self-criticism, the works. You know, to stop 'em from being bullies and things like that.
2. Re:Mod Parent Up by PopeRatzo · 2006-12-29 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Excuse me, stupid. Modding isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with the post. Can you read?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:oooh millions of pages of mindlessly boring cra by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 05:45 · Score: 0

"...I have had a TS/SCI clearance and been active inthe intel community for 15 years..."

Uhhmm, isn't it true that you're not supposed to tell anyone you've got a TS unless they have at least a Secret clearance?
Warning: Spoiler by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 05:55 · Score: 0

J. Edgar Hoover did it!
from a compassionate perspective .. by rs232 · 2006-12-28 05:56 · Score: 1

What about hundreds of Iraqi people's lives that were lost? That doesn't count eh?
How many would Saddam have killed if he'd remained in power?

It didn't matter how many he killed as long as he was an ally of the US.

"He had gassed his own people, killing far more than have died in this current 'war'. The Iraq/Iran war was so horrendous it was almost like WWI was in Europe, only with more effective weaponry including but not limited to--yep, you guessed it--chemical weapons"

With weapons and machinery supplied by the west and at the full support of the US.

"I doubt Americans have the attention span nor the understanding of geopolitics to support this 'police action' as is needed to prevent a civil war"

What's scary is that the administration doesn't have the understanding either. Iraq is effectivly split into three regions and total anarchy reigns in Afghanistan and parts of north Pakistan are under direct control of the Taliban. So I think it's a little late to talk about prevent.

"Therefore, even from a compassionate perspective"

Leaving 'compassionate' aside for the moment. The unilateral US invasion of Iraq was the dumbest thing any US administration could have done and will have long term disasterous consequences for the region. It set a dangerous president and told Siria and Iran that the only way to stay safe was to acquire nuclear weapons.

The previous President Bush understood this which is why he went to the trouble of forming a coalition before invading. You are right that such uniteral actions cannot be sucessful as the US people aren't prepared to take the number of casualities required.

Re:Can't wait... (Score:4, Insightful)

--
davecb5620@gmail.com
1. Re:from a compassionate perspective .. by Dragonslicer · 2006-12-28 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  The previous President Bush understood this which is why he went to the trouble of forming a coalition before invading.
  Bush Sr. also had a much easier time forming a coalition, since Iraq was actively engaged in an invasion of Kuwait. This time, though, Iraq wasn't "doing anything wrong" (yes, I do use that phrase very loosely).
Now then by stevenm86 · 2006-12-28 05:57 · Score: 1

A good time to go into the tilfoil hat business, eh?
Mod Parent Up by PopeRatzo · 2006-12-28 05:59 · Score: 1

How is the Parent a Troll?

There's been some serious wingnut misuse of moderation points lately. People modding comments as troll or flamebait just because they disagree.

That's how the right-wing works in this country. Small-minded bullies. Every one.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:oooh millions of pages of mindlessly boring cra by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 06:05 · Score: 0

Not that I've ever heard. My boss told me about his TS/SCI before I was fully cleared to any level (I was in process though).
attack of the twelve-foot lizard people .. by rs232 · 2006-12-28 06:09 · Score: 1

"the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie."

It's in Wikipedia, so it must be true ..

was Re:Finally (Score:3, Funny)

--
davecb5620@gmail.com
Umm... by jkauzlar · 2006-12-28 06:12 · Score: 1

Do your research... he knows Hebrew and has done studies on languages worldwide including aboriginal languages. And that was only in the 1950's. What were YOU doing in the 1950's?
1. Re:Umm... by baldass_newbie · 2006-12-28 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  Christ, I know Latin, Attic Greek, Spanish, French, enough German and Dutch to get laid/order a beer plus I've researched Sumerian, all in less time than Chomsky has had. Doesn't mean I'm a "cunning linguist".
  Let's just say his linguistic credentials don't overwhelm me. Nor do his political/social views but hey, it's a free country, even idiots get a microphone. In fact, almost exclusively.
  
  --
  The opposite of progress is congress
2. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 15:03 · Score: 0
  
  Nor do his political/social views but hey, it's a free country, even idiots get a microphone. In fact, almost exclusively.
  I always wondered how Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are able to speak on the radio and Tv. You just explained it.
3. Re:Umm... by Hawkxor · 2006-12-28 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  He's a theoretical linguist, not a language specialist.. it's like comparing an electrical engineer to an electrician. See also: Generative grammar, Chomsky hierarchy, Chomsky Normal Form (in theoretical computer science)...
4. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-03 17:56 · Score: 0
  
  Idiots get a 'reply' button, too! Chomsky doesn't really research particular languages. A good many linguists don't need more than a single language. They often study discourse, semiotics, language structure, etc. Chomsky has his critics; he was a structuralist in an age of deconstruction and postmodernism. But all sciences, especially the social, are dialectical, requiring opposing viewpoints that keep one another in check. If all they did was list their (sometimes falsifed) resumes and call each other idiots, we'd still be chipping messages in stone, not sending electrical signals across thousands of miles to one another.
I MUST say it.... by bondjamesbond · 2006-12-28 06:45 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, documents de-classify YOU!
Re:oooh millions of pages of mindlessly boring cra by fluffy99 · 2006-12-28 07:21 · Score: 1

No, security clearance info is unclassified but considered for-official-use-only which means you don't go announcing it in a public forum. What an idiot. Ever hear of OPSEC?
Nothing New by fluffy99 · 2006-12-28 07:25 · Score: 1

Wow, another boring Slashdot story. This is nothing new and nothing of any real interest will get declassified. The mandate calls for automatic classification downgrading, not complete declassification. There are so many exceptions that nothing of any real impact will get declassified. As an example, we still have ships afloat that are more than 25 years old.
1. Re:Nothing New by Charcharodon · 2006-12-28 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  Ah the single person on /dot that actually understands what declassification means.
  This is nothing more than the government cleaning out the closet, time to throw out all the old Christmas cards and receipts for toothpast and toilet paper from Walmart. Important stuff stays classified for a long time. Of course what seems important 20-30 years ago usually ends seeming pretty silly in the present. Occasionally something turns up, but still tends to only be interesting trivia for history buffs.
Re:oooh millions of pages of mindlessly boring cra by sgt.greywar · 2006-12-28 07:36 · Score: 1

Actually it isn't chumpy. Once you can put something on your resume it isn't even FOUO. Look it up. The government actually uses commercial contractors who recruit *only* cleared folks through open web sites. You sir are an idiot. Fact of clearance holding was cleared for public use long ago. OPSEC would cover people releasing operational details of their work and not the fact of employment or clearance level. Do some research.

--
Laborare Est Orare
See: LOC by C10H14N2 · 2006-12-28 07:51 · Score: 1

The first image I had was how the Library of Congress has 530 miles of shelving...largely devoted to 19th century crop statistics and similarly riveting reading. Thank GOD that isn't all indexed by Google...yet.
Re:oooh millions of pages of mindlessly boring cra by fluffy99 · 2006-12-28 08:23 · Score: 1

Chumpy? You can certainly put your ssn on a resume, but that's considered FOUO privacy act data. OPSEC covers much more than just operational details. It's primarily about keeping a low profile and not disclosing any information unless you are required to. Consider that 80% of intel gathered against the US is found by searching unclassified sources. Do you honestly think someone isn't out there compiling a list of TS clearance holders from open sources? Especially ones who claim to work on the NIPRNET backbone? As an example of how serious DOD is taking this: they just dishonorably discharged a guy who posted way too much info on myspace. None of it was classifed, but he posted lots of opsec related info such as his clearance, occupation, postings, and future posting.

Either way, is there any valid reason for you to advertise that you have a TS on slashdot, other than your own ego? Do you have any idea who I am? I could be your boss, security manager, or a Chinese spy. Either way, it's none of my business or the general internets business whether you have a clearance. If you're so comfortable with this, ask yourself if you would be upset if I forwarded this whole thread to OPM to have your clearance reviewed.
Those unnecessary secrets are a feature. by Tired_Blood · 2006-12-28 08:35 · Score: 1

BUT, any fact kept secret without reson to do so i an abomination!
Do you use encryption on your email? If you do, do you use it sparingly or all the time?

If you use it sparingly, then anyone that wants to investigate your secrets will be able to focus their attention to those few encrypted messages.
If you use it all the time, then anyone that wants to investigate your secrets will need to wade through ALL of your messages.

The theory is that the real secrets become more secret.

However, to make use of this cluttering of secrets someone needs to choose what constitutes the clutter. Those who have this power available to them can utilize it for personal gain, and the concept becomes corrupted. At this point in history, I doubt that anyone intentionally applies the theory anymore and just does it out of abuse of privilege. But honestly, it's hard to tell if the concept wasn't corrupted from the start.

Either way, it's a perspective on the nature of state secrets that directly conflicts with yours. That of "Us vs Them", with 'Us' as the politicians or state organizations and 'Them' as everyone else - especially other politicians. The idea that "a government serves the people" is not considered with this attitude.

--
This is not my sig.
No meddling = no cheap gasoline by bigtrike · 2006-12-28 08:49 · Score: 1

And give up our cheap gasoline? The lazy American masses would revolt if they had to consider other alternatives.
1. Re:No meddling = no cheap gasoline by rtechie · 2006-12-28 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  And give up our cheap gasoline?
  
  It's more like "give up cheap everything". The USA makes it's money through trade, and more specifically, by enforcing trade rules that benifet the United States at the expense of other nations. These rules are (ultimately) enforced through military action. If we don't "meddle" in other nations, those nations will try to get a better trade deal and the USA will lose lots of money, which will translate to a lower quality of life for Americans. There are plenty of other factors, but protecting economic interest is the main reason the USA "meddles" and the USA will continue to do so, as long as they want to keep making money.
Mod Parent Troll by finiteSet · 2006-12-28 09:04 · Score: 1

People like you hate chomsky because he has a history of critizing/exposing american foreign policy to the world.
Your accusation of trolling focuses entirely on Chomsky's political merits whereas the GP focused entirely on the merits of Chomsky's contributions to linguistics. Perhaps you know more about the GP than was present in the post, but I see absolutely no reason to believe that his criticisms were politically motivated.

I earned a Bachelors in Linguistics and - as the GP suggests - the belief that Chomsky's monopoly on syntax set the field back is not uncommon (one professor, after accidentally mentioning Chomksy, actually apologized for uttering his name).

Yeah wow with all that proof you've given how could anyone NOT be convinced?...Stop being so jealous of chomsky ok mr internet troll?
I'm sorry to say it, but your post is ten times the troll that the GP was.

--
If we start buying CDs then the terrorists have already won.
It was a mistake. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-28 09:41 · Score: 0

I agree that we shouldn't be meddling in the affairs of other countries. We meddled in European affairs back in the 40's and look what it got us. Now every country in Europe is a sworn enemy of the US and all support the Islamics over the US. We also meddled in the affairs of New York when we attacked the tali ban for the 9/11 attacks. If the ROP decides to help clean up the sewers of the US like New York, San Fransisco, LA, or Seattle we should stay out of it or lend assistance.
Try again by foreverdisillusioned · 2006-12-28 14:46 · Score: 1

Try tens of thousands of CONFIRMED civilian casualties. Total Iraqi deaths (civilians and non-civilians) has climbed to well over 600,000, according to the Lancet Survey of Mortality (this takes into account *increased* death rates due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare--any factor that was directly caused by the war.)
1. Re:Try again by foreverdisillusioned · 2006-12-28 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  Ok nevermind, I must be going blind... read that as merely "try thousands." Yeah, hundreds of thousands is a good, realistic number to convey the kind of devastation we've wrought.
Re:oooh millions of pages of mindlessly boring cra by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-29 01:07 · Score: 0

"...if I forwarded this whole thread to OPM to have your clearance reviewed..."

Done and done FBI style done. Check out his blog for more "loose lips" indiscretions.
UN *has* declared war on the Smurfs by Maximum+Prophet · 2006-12-29 06:49 · Score: 1

Haven't you heard? The UN has already started bombing smurf hideouts. http://blog.reidreport.com/2005/10/smurfageddon.ht ml

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
yes by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-29 15:06 · Score: 0

"It says that millions of Americans have witnessed arial phenomena that they simply don't believe were swamp gas, weather balloons or the planet venus."

Count me in that group. You see one up close and it changes your life forever, that's all I have to say. You never again trust government in even the little things, let alone the larger things, you question a lot more, and it gets easier to dismiss trolls and no-nothings for what they are, this generation's hooters who just "know" the world is flat and anyone who thinks otherwise must be a heretic or delusional.

Times change. 100 years from now maybe it will be common and accepted knowledge, but right now I imagine they try to keep it secret from all the social changes that public revelation might bring. Or something else, I don't know, perhaps they are profitting immensely from keeping it insider knowledge. I *do* resent how they enforce ridicule on people over the subject though, it can hurt people quite a bit.

I will tell you though, maybe you'll appreciate it, it is just so damn neat to know we aren't alone.
1. Re:yes by Lord+Kano · 2006-12-30 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  Count me in that group.
  
  And me as well. What I saw was in the early 1980s, so I'll concede that it could have been some type of black project. But it damn sure wasn't swamp gas, weather balloons or venus.
  
  I *do* resent how they enforce ridicule on people over the subject though, it can hurt people quite a bit.
  
  People have been seeing things in the sky for far too long for them to not be real.
  
  LK
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano