Slashdot Mirror
Secret Gov't Documents Will be Declassified 12/31
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."
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
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
> 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.
What about hundreds of Iraqi people's lives that were lost? That doesn't count eh?
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.
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.
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
Hundreds? Try hundreds of thousands.
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
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
"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.
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.
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
If you all want open access to intel sources, great: just don't expect any security in exchange.
Here is a source for my information, Executive Order 12958, Classified National Security Information, April 17, 1995: http://www.dss.mil/seclib/eo12958.htm
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.
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!
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:
Of course, the old trick of covering up / reclassifying things is still in use as well:
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.
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.
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
I know you didn't really ask, but right here. Scroll down to "Weekly Carnage."
And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
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 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!
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.
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..
Yes, Chomsky's a professor of linguistics.
And yet he only speaks one language. How funny is that?
The opposite of progress is congress
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
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.
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.
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.
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
You forget that he supposedly had intelligence that supported his cause against Iraq which I have yet to see any of.
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.
I'm also puzzled as to how a Jew can be deemed anti-semitic.
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)
Who moderated the parent off-topic? Grow a sense of humor! The parent post is hilarious.
Bring back Sirius Punk!
That's what I want to know. Shouldn't those be in the mix?
Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
If it was possible to mod you even higher I would.
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.
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."
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
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
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.
Excuse me, your tin-foil hat's on crooked.
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.
Set the field back by decades? Explain. Where would your field be without Chomsky?
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.
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.
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
Your own what? Race? A more important human?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
I think that's called lightning.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
But, per President Bush himself, one event (9/11) was directly responsible for the second (attacking Iraq).
0 030319-1.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/2
Seems black and white, no?
"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?"
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...
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
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
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);
There isn't 300 million americans physically fighting the war in iraq. So your perspective is a little off as well.
MrJynx
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]..
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
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?
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 ;-)/ main316911.shtml
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
"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.
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
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.
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.
That link should have been in the article summary.
Everyone else, RTFEO (read the freakin executive order) before posting.
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.
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.
Actually you do owe some things to the world: the USA needs to obey the international/universal human rights agreements.
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
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"
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
A good time to go into the tilfoil hat business, eh?
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.
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!
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
"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
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!
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?
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!"
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!
In Soviet Russia, documents de-classify YOU!
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
"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!
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
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
> 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".
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?
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.
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.
Quite right. He's American, for one.
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
Fair enough. Of course, I'm going to brag about a recent "hit" prediction.
7 52561g nation
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=205217&cid=16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld#Resi
Honestly, I hope that this one doesn't come true.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
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.
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.
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.
Peter Sellers? Is that you?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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
And give up our cheap gasoline? The lazy American masses would revolt if they had to consider other alternatives.
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).
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.
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
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...
*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
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
"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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Oh wait that's right he's the President and you're not, funny how that works isn't it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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.....
Your posts are both misleading and full of inaccuracies.
.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.
.htm)
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
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
* US sanctions against Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of over 500,000 children (See http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/200
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.
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
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
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
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
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
I'm not American, and history just isn't my forté.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
What's the evidence for this?
Last time I checked not too many kids and spouses getting blown up by IED over inb Iraq.
Certainly not American kids and spouses....
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.
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)
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.
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
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
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.
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.
What makes you so sure? Don't you think they'd like to install their own brand of Islam-based government?
> 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.
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!
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
You're just not getting this whole "logic" thing, are you?