Slashdot Mirror
Airships to Patrol Venezuela's Skies
bprime writes "The BBC reports that officials in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, have bought three airship UAVs to keep tabs on the local populace. From the article: 'The 15 metre (49 foot) long air ships are emblazoned with government slogans. Written in bright red are the words, We watch over you for your security.' They're not exactly black helicopters, but how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?"
And I thought that I was in a rational century without totalitarian governments that have the capabilities to do things like this.
Isn't this out of some SCI-Fi movie?
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
All your rights and freedoms are belong to us!
Have EVDO, will travel.
...and it'll be accurate.
At leat the blimps won't make as much noise as the police helicopters over much of LA in the night.
Here's my guess: Better not be until after the repeal of the Second Amendment.
New Socialist government, airships with slogans. The Venezuelans wanted this guy in power, so they got what they wanted.
"They're not exactly black helicopters, but how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?"
Never.
Because ours actually ARE black helicopters.
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." -Isaac Asimov
... The local populace enjoys target practice.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
The real question is not how long until you see these flying over US cities, but how long until they start getting shot down over US cities by angered citizens with some know how.
There have been reports of this already,
and I'm fairly certain that the domestic airlines
have already been outfitted with underbelly cameras
for that purpose. If you are near a major airport,
watch the patterns of the planes when they arrive
for landing. I believe that you will observe that
successive planes do not follow the same flight path,
but actually have slightly overlapping flight paths,
even when they are all going to land on the same runway.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
WOO HOO! Gotta' go patent this idea!
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Something has happened elsewhere in the world. But how long until someone uses it to criticize Bush?
Hmmm...
The Venezuelan government buys 15 meter long airships for surveillance.
The city of Caracas has the "worlds worst figures for gun death".
So, taking a bit of a leap [jump with me if you wish]... The government of Venezuela is providing expensive 15 meter long floating targets for the people of Caracas to shoot at instead of shooting at each other...
You know, it just might be crazy enough to work...
After all, I'm sure that those with vested interests not to be monitored have the means to bring those down...
I'm sure his response to this would be, "EL DIABLO, George Bush, is trying to keel me. I am searching for his infidels."
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
I'm Venezuelan, and didn't know anything until I read it here... Anyway, like almost everything that this government does, it's pretty sure that this will be used more for political/social control than crime prevention. And I can see the "control room" dismantled in a few months, all of the equipment broken/stolen and the ships rusting...
Chicago has fixed point cameras spreading throughout high crime areas. In the UK the fixed point cameras can and do verbally chide petty scofflaws (litterers, jaywalkers).
They're not exactly black helicopters, but how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?"
First of all, why try to make this into some kind of "America bad" diatribe? Does everything have to end up connecting with the supposed lost liberties in America? This has nothing to with the US.
Next, it already has happened in America at least once that I'm aware of. There was a Fuji blimp in the air 24/7 over NY during the Republican National Convention in 2004. Rumor had it that it was there for security, both against terrorism and all the protesters that were trying to "brownshirt" the convention.
Finally, how is this any different than all the cameras on every street corner in cities like London?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I wonder who has the contract for patching bullet holes in these things? Or, given that Venezuela's adjacent to some places with significant political instability, ground-to-air missiles? I don't even think it'd have to be for cause: just, hey, look, I wonder what will happen if we shoot at that?
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
it's already there. The first time I saw this I was sure it's some kind of pro-privacy ad, but apparently it's dead serious :(
*- Insert your favorite totalitarian government style
The summary asks, "how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?" Didn't I read about surveillance blimps already in the air over Washington DC, several years ago? Google says, YES!
Period. Even if you agree with his dislike of George Bush, he is sending democracy in Venezuela back decades.
Let's just hope that Koopa's not involved this time...
I left my wallet in El Sigundo!
- Stealthy UAVs are hard to see!
- The things might not actually work very well.
- Your local police and politicians may have some other boondoggle they like better than this one.
Various people have been proposing blimps and other aerostats for cellular and data applications, and every year there's another announcement that they'll be launching Real Soon Now. But they don't. On the other hand, with Glorious Homeland Security Anti-Terrorist Funding, your local police might be able to buy them anyway. The US Military has proposed a fleet of a dozen blimps watching our borders for Drug Enforcement, watching for small planes that are too hard to see from ground-based radar. I don't know if that's been launched yet or not.Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
COPS: Caracas
A high speed chase featuring an airship tracking and a donkey powered wood cart through a shanty-town.
There are rather more worrisome things about Venezualan police than their use of UAVs.
Am I the only one thinking of that episode of The Powerpuff Girls where the mayor flew around in a balloon and thwarted evildoers with an extending boxing glove contraption? Come to think of it I probably am the only one. As you were.
In the US of A, advertising slogans would be far more likely.
The LAPD is already trying to use UAV's in Los Angeles. The only thing holding them up is a squabble with the FAA.
n ded-disciplinary-action-possible/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/22/l-a-drone-grou
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Reminds me of an Aqua Teen Hunger Force (ATHF) scene where Shake is "The Drizzle." I'm paraphrasing here:
Master Shake: I can summon rainclouds to rain out the crime
Meatwad: Right, so then they go inside and rob banks and kill people.
Master Shake: Yeah, they could do that...
Someone would hole the envelope with a rifle.
Of course there would be the obligatory references to "Big Brother" and such. I can hear the rhetoric now...
Soviet Venezuela, airship flies you! (?)
There's a misplaced 'y' at the beginning of the 2nd last word, but we shouldn't come down too hard on them for it. It's something a spell checker wouldn't catch.
Loose lips lose spit.
Britain in particular hasn't a leg to stand on when it comes to offering a critical view of others' domestic surveillance.
I never realized before that the medeivals had included video cameras in the ornamentation on the steeples of Westminster Abbey.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Of Course he says that, what would he say? I find the printing of slogans on them "We watch over you for your security" to be very newspeak.
While it might be true that the dirigibles will help to an extent, they can at least monitor places faster than a foot-mounted officer might get there, I find it unlikely that these will really eliminate or even substantially reduce the crime problem. Evidence from places like Britain and other areas have shown that, at best, such cameras make catching people after the fact sometimes easier but even that constant monitoring isn't necessarily useful.
At the end of the day the goal should be to prevent crime and I find it unlikely that a fleet of such airships would do it in the long term. More likely they will be used at the next anti-government demonstration to gather "intelligence" on the opposition.
At the end of the day, in my experience, crime is driven by economic and political factors and can only be mitigated by that, and by strong community-based policing. I've certainly seen that in my own town were "targeted" neighborhoods (aka Black Neighborhoods") are given little regular police protection (i.e. officers walking beats, getting to know the neighbors, etc) but are the subject of regular well-staged "crackdowns" in which the swat team rolls through watching over them for their security. The police complain, rightly, that when something happens there they get no help from the residents. The residents complain, rightly, that the police aren't there regularly, aren't from there, don't know anyone, and tend to treat them like an enemy population to be suppressed, not citizens whom they protect.
In the most recent incident the police rolled through with the swat team, kleig lights and weapons pointed at anyone they saw in a "drug sweep", noone was caught, it was simply a show of force. Yet all the rest of the nights, the police aren't seen and it is only neighborhood watch groups that get anything done.
Are police helicopters "similar"? I'd say so.
They started using them about 30 years ago...
Come quietly or there will be trouble.
Life needs more saving throws.
I thought that is where all this was supposed to start?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
till they are so bullet ridden that they come down in tatters...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Never.
Naw. As soon as a major city has a big enough RICO siezure to buy 'em.
Helicopters cost a LOT to operate. They spend over an hour in the shop for every hour in the air. They MUST be maintained because there are a LOT of moving parts that are single points of failure - most involving a crash if they fail.
Airships can be very redundant and even if they crash they tend to do so gently (unless you paint them with thermite and fill them with hydrogen).
It's easy for police departments to buy big ticket items with RICO money. But their ongoing upkeep has to keep paying off, so it helps to keep that low.
Helicopters are good for point work - like assisting chases or patrolling highways during rush hour. But for ongoing surveillance they're expensive. And noisy, which tends to heisenberg ongoing crime out of their view.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
you just have to have a pair of sunglasses like Rowdy Roddy Piper to see em..
slow blimps + gun crime = open season on blimps
my guess is the blimps won't last long...
If the government can steal what they want, why not the people? Atlas Shrugged.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Responses to this article may not include the name Orwell or references to 1984 or the many, many, many derivative fictional works. ...
That would be like a 1,000,000 Slashbot users having highvoltage kneejerk reactions to every flying robot drone article by quoting Asimov's laws of robotics.
Which he used as a plot device to crank out pulp fiction at a record rate. The only robot he ever used was his toaster. A plot device people,
Oh, I'm the first to mention Orwell and 1984. oops.
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
So, I know the UK is not exactly the US in terms of handgun availaibility, but are air rifles or paintball guns allowed? If so, why isn't potshotting surveillance cameras more popular? Seems like a very low-tech, low-cost approach to defeating what are probably high-cost installations. (Even if the actual cameras aren't too pricey, the unionized labor running the cherry-picker certainly is)
But there is more:
Caracas is no HappyLand. It has a high crime rate, just like Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (that by the way has its own surveillance blimp too). Surveillance is necessary, no, condition sine qua non to allow common people to live their lives without fear to be shot by a pair of Nike shoes (happens a lot in some Brazilian cities, just so you know). That's the situation is most Latin America.
Now, is not it hypocritical that 1) this is BBC reporting, coming straight from the country with the most ubiquitous surveillance system in the world 2) people are so desperate to find something to nail Hugo Chavez for that they need to resort to such FUD because they got nothing else. This is a move by the City of Caracas, not the country of Venezuela, just like the blimps on U.S. are a move from the NYPD, not the Federal Government.
Now stop talking about things you guys don't know about, and quit spreading fud. Come on, "keeping tab on the population".
DR. Who and the Cybermen when the airships were hovering over London?
Life immates art.
Table-ized A.I.
Now all they need are big OLED displays that show a constant stream of pro-government propaganda..
Blerg.
In Hugo's Venezuela Blimps watch you!
[Insert pithy quote here]
Bullshit. The *majority* of Venezuelans *do* want Chavez. That's why he is there. There is a small but vocal segment of people that don't share his socialist ideals, but they are the *minority*.
Having a bunch of these over a city is probably cheaper than using a satellite. But what an ugly sight! :)
"Sockets are the standard networking API, also useful for stopping your eyes from falling onto your cheeks" zeromq.org
a rag tag band of resistance fighters, who find a strange and mysterious but important girl or guy in the woods and we can call Venezuela "Final Fantasy land".
My dream is almost here.
A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies!
The chance to begin again in a Golden Land of opportunity and adventure...
Military-Industrial CONGRESSIONAL Complex.
Unconstitushionally as always,
George W. Bush
I'll bet the view is a lot better from the growing number of police camera's that have been deployed in Chicago over the last few years. It used to be that a blue light meant special bargains, now it just means you live in a high crime neighborhood. Oh, and these cameras are supposed to be able to withstand gunfire.
c e+camera&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=chicago+poli
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
At what point did you think you had any expectation to privacy while outside? These airships as well as other UAVs that some cities are deploying are by the simple fact that they fly can only be used to monitor outdoor areas, which is less then even the London security cameras which despite built in measures could still be used to potentially spy through windows. Furthermore, You don't need to knee jerk and exclaim "1984!!" every time some government decides to exploit a new technology to help the local police forces.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
From a civil rights perspective, how is this any different from police car units patrolling your neighborhood?
Ummm... because police cars don't quietly glide above my fenced-in back yard and so can't see into it?
Normally, around here, the police would have to have "probable cause" (admittedly a low hurdle, but still something) in order to look in my back yard. If they can float around the neighborhood in an airship it seems they no longer need probable cause to look in my back yard, and I keep my best stuff there.
Putting moderation advice in your
Anyway, like almost everything that this government does, it's pretty sure that this will be used more for political/social control than crime prevention.
Huh?
Don't you understand that resisting a totalitarian regime is a crime?
After all, they're the government and they pass the laws. Many of these laws were to make it illegal to resist them, right? So political/social control IS law enforcement.
(I hear the fearless leader believes strongly in a one man, one vote system. He's the man, and he has the vote.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
by none other than Hugo Chavez. :P
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
airships watch YOU!
Britain is rich, so they just put a camera on every street corner, looking at the entire city the entire time.
Which do you think is worse?
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
"Pay no attention to the loss of your freedoms. They're being carefully monitored."
"Chavez is your hero!"
"Blame America for everything"
"Got oil?"
"Come visit the off-world colonies..."
But to sum up, yes, the US has been doing this for a few years now. There are Border UAV's flying the entire Canadian, and Mexico borders, along with coastal UAV's, as well as multiple city UAV's. We are being watched, and they don't put a nice big sign on it for us to see. They are way up there, and almost impossible to see with the naked eye, unless you are seriously searching for it.
They are deployed for tracking, not crime fighting. It's no different then when the LAPD scrambles a police helicopter to go follow a high speed chase, except these will already be in the air, cheaper to maintain, and you won't really know when your being followed.
Did they mention anything about the offworld colonies? (A new life awaits you?)
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
I for one welcome our new zepplin-flying overlords and their slogan: O'The Humanity.
beep-beep-beep boop-boop-boop beep-beep-beep
It isn't just a petty squabble with the FAA that is keeping UAVs out of civil airspace. There are major legislative hurdles to overcome before government bodies can even get CLOSE to flying UAVs, let alone over populated areas. The military has an extremely difficult time getting COAs to fly their own equipment around, what makes you think that some police department is going to get away with it? Sure, you might think that the legislation will just get pushed through. You clearly underestimate the power of the AOPA and their lobbying skills.
The FAA puts up one hell of a fight to fly a proven, safe UAV *FIVE MILES* from a municipal airport in the middle of nowhere Kansas to a restricted airspace controlled by the military and not the DoD. Sorry, there is no "eye in the sky" coming for us anytime soon.
Just a little fact check considering all the bullshit I see .
Noam Chomsky made a very interesting point,as he usually does: public trust in governments, as measured through opinion polls, is going down worldwide, and particularly accross america.
Guess where it's currently the highest? That's right, Venezuela.
CNN and other corporate US medias -- including Associated Press! -- call Chavez a dictator. It's the word they use in headline, litterally, no exageration on my part. That's hilariously, if not completely revolting, libellous. Chavez was democratically elected and re-elected, his numbers going UP from one election to the next. They've been validated by international organisations, including Pdt. Carter's organisation. Compare this Florida '00 for good measure.
Carter's organisation vetted the elections.
Their results are also surprisingly consistent with independtly performed polls and exit pollings -- unlike in the US of A! Remember 2004? That wasn't long ago.
Plus Venezuelian voting machines (that's bad) are Open Source (that's good). Unlike Diebold's.
" but how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?" The sooner the better.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Why won't it happen here? Money. Program will cost millions to run, have extremely limited use and will never pass any budget legislation. ...except maybe in the state that houses GoodYear.
In my city(a moderately large city in the midwest) there are cameras at high crime intersections with blue strobe lights attached. It is within a 2 minute walk from my front door. These effectively say, "We're watching over you" without the nicety of "for your protection." These cameras are not for traffic regulation, but are for drug dealers, prostitutes and "The Terrorists." It's a little disconcerting, but I've already grown accustomed to it. Though, I think I might prefer the airship to the blue strobe.
Not until they start using Thunderbird LAVs, chummer.
Yeah, it's easy to use particular labels and then jump to the "correct" best conclusion. Living under a "dictatorship" is bad, and being "liberated" is good.
How about changing the labels: Under Saddam they lived in relative "peace", and now they live in "total chaos". Which would you choose?
They're already here. They're called ATM cameras...
at least you only need a BB gun to shoot them down
Running from the law definitely wasnt as easy as they made it look on the Dukes of Hazzard --Joy, My Name is Earl (2006
So she believed that the ends justified the means.
In the US, the government has tremendous power, so it is a smart idea to keep tabs on it to make sure it doesn't grab more than it already has. But when you live in an environment where criminals and terrorists run the show, your most obvious threat isn't the government. It's the people who are stealing, killing, and terrorizing.
Fujimori obviously isn't going to go down in history as a promoter of the rule of law. But paradoxically he seems to have paved the way for the rule of law by wiping out the Sendaro Luminoso.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
And what Western democracies would that be? This is a question of definitions. Please remember that the West may include South America - but only if you disregard the economic criteria. I certainly don't include them. But perhaps it would be better to compare apples with apples.
The North or the countries of the OECD might make for more interesting and relevant comparisons. European democracies actually work. But then again we have proportional representation.
I see that 1984 is alive and well in Venezuela. Next we'll remove your right to vote, because going to the polls is both dangerous, and unnecessary. We know what you want. We know what you need. And we're about to give you everything you deserve for electing us in the first place.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I guess these folks never read '1984'. Or then they just liked the idea...
ps fucking "wait between each successful posting of a comment", should be per topic!
Although there is the added "surprise, bullets out of nowhere" factor.
Things To Come...
[UID-HeinzIntel]
cuz it's all just a little bit of history repeating...
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
How long 'til we see them in the U.S.?
The Boston police department are in the process of "training" for doing "patrols" with the Massachusetts state police in the MSP helicopter(s).
Something tells me that they're going to spend most of their time hovering around in Dorchester, Mattapan, Roxbury, etc- not Newbury Street, MIT, and Harvard. And something tells me that as long as they don't, we won't hear a peep about citizen complaints even if they pile in from residents tired of listening to the roar of helicopter blades and searchlights waking them in the middle of the night.
Please help metamoderate.
Start a new life on the off world colonies.....
"...A new life awaits you in the Off-World colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure..."
How did you get from third world countries where raping children and forcing them to shoot each other was an everyday occurrence, to America where I can still send my kids to school without body armor and its war on Iraq?
Well, while we're off topic to push whatever ideological agenda...
Fact: This is a war, and failure to recognize and admit this is the first step to losing it.
No wonder we're not doing so hot. This was Bush's walk in the park, not the Democrats' or whoever else you're going to blame for the course Bush held.
One thing:
Fact: Iraq was a preemptive strike. America has never done that before. There's a reason. Yes, we were attacked, but it wasn't by Iraq. It's like France sunk an aircraft carrier and we retaliated against England.
They are allready there it is called project bleu light
- a serveilance drone invisble at daylight.
(well almost invisible, you would need a high def IR cam)
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
We fight them there or we fight them here?
While it makes for a nice soundbite, it's a complete delusion.
So going over there and fucking with them somehow stops them from coming over here? Are you serious? On the flip side, you're saying if we totally leave them alone, they'll just come over here for the hell of it? Oh yes, the tired old line "they hate our freedoms", right? They are still human, basic human nature is "Don't fuck with me, I won't fuck with you." So I don't buy your argument.
What's to stop them from sneaking over here while we're fighting over there? Not much. How many people come through the Mexican border every day? Think the boogeyman terrorists can't make it through there too? Oh, wait, we're fighting them 'over there', so we're all safe here.
Terrorism knows no boundaries, yet we need to fight them over 'there'? I thought it didn't know any boundaries.
We fight them there? What, all disgruntled religious freaks have suddenly moved to Iraq? Well hell, that's nice and overly simplistic. Is the set of 'terrorists' fully encapsulated by 'Iraq'? No? Hmmmm... So not all terrorists are Iraqi? So are all terrorists Arabic? No? Hmmmm.... So all Terrorists are Muslim? No? Hmmm... So all terrorists are human and live on Earth? Yes?
Oh shit! They're here!! They're everywhere? Shit shit shit! Let's run in circles and panic! Agggghhhh! The boogeyman is gonna get me. HolyFuckingShit!
Was that guy in at Virgina Tech an Iraqi? Arabic? Muslim? Human? Well then why didn't our fighting 'over there', stop him from killing 32 people 'over here'? Oh, that's right, you are talking out of your ass, blindly parroting bullshit feel-good nonsense you heard on TV, again, aren't you?
It gives me a migraine headache, thinking down to your level. (In the words of the great prophet, Dave Mustaine)
how long will it take for the slogans to read:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Oh well i have karma to burn: I'd much prefer that you'd fight them in the US. I doubt over 100 deaths a day would be tolerated and swept under the rug if it happened in the US as opposed to Iraq. Fact: America sponsored saddam and we sponsored terrorism, it was US who sold Saddam weapons and made him fabulously wealthy and us who armed Osama. By your logic why on earth do we in the west not deserve to be condemned? you personally didn't do that? well neither did the Iraqi people, it is the foundation of justice that its better to let 10 guilty men go free than to punish 1 innocent, yet this seems to go out the door when we wrap scary words like war and terrorism around our statements Fact: yeah it is a "war" but not in the common sense of the word, it has simply become another excuse to fuel the vast American commercial war machine, This is not a war that will be won with guns and nukes, any idiot with half a brain can see this,nor it is a war which has any apparent way to win now. You know if you used the department of defense budget for a single day you could provide anti-malaria nest for every child in Africa Fact: When you say "them" i assume you mean Islamic extremists, who were never in Iraq to start with and only came because we invaded. even if you take this statement as holding any sort of merit ( I don't it seems to imply the idea that afgan/iraqi lives are less valuable than American lives, as well as being based on the misguided idea of a "war on terror"(see above) it seems extraordinary to suggest that this is working in any sense, 9/11, the London tube bombing and the Spanish bombings all happened here, while its true far more death destruction and violence happens "there" it wasn't until WE sent troops over there, under some misguided idea of liberation and democracy ( which has failed miserably in afgansitan and is a sham in Iraq) As a caveat i do acknowledge that we have no way of knowing wether the number of attacks HERE has been reduced. As i pointed out above the numbers seem farily constant with the number of western terrorist attacks pre-9/11, especially if we include foiled plots on western soil.
What you fail to realize is that crime is used to coerce people into giving
up their rights. So they let crime run rampant and terrorize the populace
until the people cry out against it and then they move in with the solution.
Your classic Hegel at work here: Problem -> Reaction -> Solution.
Crime keeps the populace in line and provides fodder for inmate labor programs.
If it didn't occur naturally, governments would have invented it. What
they all do is sow crime until they can harvest another crackdown on
it. Btw I wouldn't be at all surprised if scumbag Fujimori didn't own a
couple of hundred acres of coca plantation.
Oh yeah and what did Bosnia do to us. Hell Germany didn't directly attack us before either world war. Vietnam nope, Spain during the Spanish-American war nope, oh wait the war of 1812, nope we didn't get attacked first there either. Guess what most countries go to war for many reasons other than being attacked. If people only got in fight when someone hit them first there wouldn't be any fights. It is the way the world works and always will. People perceive threats and act on them. You can question how good someone perception is as to whether or not a threat is valid but don't be an idiot by making stuff up.
Oh look an airship. Bang. Bang. Oh look a $30000 dollar tarpaulin.
Germany didn't directly attack us, but Japan did. They were allies. Can't go to war with one without the other. Who'd we go to war with that led to Iraq?
In Vietnam we were helping the French. I seem to forget, which one of our allies was at war in Iraq and asked for our help?
The Spanish-American war was started by what was at the time believed to be Spanish sabotage. What did Iraq blow up?
War of 1812 was caused by Britain blocking our trade ships with Spain and imprisoning thousands of sailors. Who did Iraq capture?
...allegedly, has the top two political parties conspire to not only not include any other candidates on the forum for the so called national and official presidential debate, but actually threatens them with arrest if they have tickets and try to just sit in the audience-I'd call that a dog and pony show. And when the controlled lapdog press goes along with it, another part of the show. When two cooperating parties basically hijack the government and just divide the spoils, and it is clear both of these parties have full compliments of crooks, thieves, liars, bribe takers and assorted scum, yet nothing substantial happens overall, that's a dog and pony show. When both parties are run by globalist millionaires at the top, even to the point of running so called "opposition" candidates from the same billionaire boys club fraternity secret society, that's a joke, a dog and pony show. Candidates who are so far removed from the productive middle class electorate, so much so that they don't even know what a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk really costs-that's a dog and pony show political system, a farce. When elected leaders come from hereditary political dynasties-basically an elite aristocracy- including the ex head of the "secret police", that's a sham, a dog and pony show. When you have overwhelming smoking gun evidence that the "electronic" elections have been hacked and compromised, that quite possibly whomever is in office shouldn't be there, yet nothing happens, and no one gets into any trouble over it-it goes beyond a dog and pony show and starts to look like any other banana republic dictatorship, just with two "wings" instead of one to give the illusion of "free and honest elections". When you have an overwhelmingly large violent "incident", that pushes forth a radical anti freedom agenda, and there is enough credible evidence with literally dozens of quite peculiar characteristics that don't jibe in any manner whatsoever with the "official story of what happened", and there are no actual honest and open investigations, instead they push forth an obvious whitewash/coverup/ignore the evidence that doesn't fit commission-you have to ask yourself, when can a violent coup be called a coup?
The US has been in a slow and steady gradual takeover by shadowy elements very powerful inside and outside of government, ever since an actual brave and thoughtful president-Ike- thought it necessary to warn the people during his retirement speech that it could and would happen if we weren't careful. Later on, the folks he was warning about managed to get rid of one elected person who was getting wise to them and was seeking to limit their power. Then they eliminated his brother, who looked likely to carry the torch on for his fallen sibling-yet nothing has happened about it. It's gotten worse since then, until now, we have only the faintest mirage of real freedom as it was originally designed to be, and that mirage is fading fast, with various "patriotic enabling acts" and "signing statements" that clearly show that only one agenda will go forward and the people and their wishes be damned, with big wars completely based on proven lies, wars which still will not end even when the lies are finally admitted to, and nothing happens to the proven liars.
Calling it a "dog and pony show" is being excessively *polite* and minimalistic near as I can see.
Wow. See, the thing is, when I read your post, I laughed. I thought you were being funny. Then I continued reading, and realized you were serious. That made me laugh harder.
Lets go through, point by point:
Would your friend have felt better if we'd made Iraq our 51st state first? Then we would be fighting them on our own territory, rather than that of another country. Either way, the fight would have been exactly the same thing!
We are morally justified in fighting with them (whoever "they" are in Iraq. I don't really know, do you? Oh, right, yes, the "Insurgents". That makes it so much clearer. Please, before you say something else stupid, read soldiers talking about how THEY don't know who they are fighting, which is part of the reason why things like Haditha keep happening), cause we could have claimed their country as ours, and then we would be fighting them in OUR land. I mean, we could say the same thing about France (were we to invade). "Well we could just make FRANCE our 51st state, so we are justified in fighting them, cause if we had they would have fought with us, so they are fighting with us now, so it is the EXACT SAME THING". (that is the line that made me laugh.
Fact: Saddam sponsored terrorism. Among his other acts, was paying rewards to families of suicide bombers who blow themselves up in Israel. That alone is enough to condemn him.
Well, now that IS true. Not particularly Relevant, but true. I mean, if you were talking about Israel Invading Iraq, THEN it would make sense. But, well, I mean, Person C hit Person D. That Gives Person U the right to beat the living crap out of C? And before you say "well, that is just the terrorism I mentioned. There were others." Why don't you mention them in the first place. I mean, when someone brings and irrelevant prooftext, it makes me think they dont have a relevant one.
Fact: Terrorism knows no boundaries, nor will being nice to terrorists make them your friends.
The second part I wholly agree with. I am not sure I should, consider, for instance, the IRA. But, I do. Actually, though, the vast majority of terrorism is very local. 9/11 is not a proof to the contrary, it is a horrific exception. Where was Timothy McVeigh from? Oklahoma you say? Those Suicide Bombers In Israel? Why, as soon as the seperation fence went up, their numbers dropped dramatically. I don't really know enough about Indonesia, or Spain.
Fact: This is a war, and failure to recognize and admit this is the first step to losing it.
This is a war we started. By Choice. And, in so doing we de-stabalized a fairly stable, non-threatening state. Committing virtually all of our military strength to an area, that, before we went there, wasnt a threat. Giving other places (Iran anyone?) who are a threat to us, a much greater sense of security, in threatening us. What do you think losing is, if not what we are doing now? Bleeding our troops, exhausting them, wrecking their battle-readiness. Oh, and bleeding our economy at a rate of, 200? 300 BILLION dollars a year?
Fact: We fight them there, or we fight them here. Your choice. I've already made mine.
This is the one that really pisses me off. Makes me want to say something like, you stupid arrogant FUCK. Now, if you have served in the army, if you have lived in a tent, and not seen your family or loved ones for months or years at a time, then, really I apologize, and you really have a right to say that. Otherwise, you probably, like the vast majority of Americans, don't do a damn thing. I am just guessing, that you, like our president, don't know a fucking THING about what it mean to fight them there (I, just in case you are intersted, HAVE been in the army, though not the American one (I have Dual citizenship with and was drafted in Israel), and DO know what it is to spend months in the dessert in a
Dog is my co-pilot.
The article actually says that the airships are to crack down on crime.
The Slashdot summary talks about keeping tabs on local populace.
The Slashdot comments talk about Chevez and Bush politics.
It seems like everyone has their preconceived views on Venezuela and puts their own spin on the story. Is Slashdot so set in its thinking?
3 airships is hardly likely to change the social fabric of Caracas. Most police forces have helicopters to chase criminals and I would think the UK has many more than 3 available, without anyone talking about overtones of surveillance society.
C'mon lets see moderators pick out the interesting comments about this story, not the precanned predecided views on Venezuela.
Don't forger Franco, Lukashenko and CowboyNeal
The enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend.
Japan didn't declare war. How can you say they attacked us?
So if I punch you in the face without declaring intent, it's all on the up-and-up and you should just take it?
This holds true for the press as well. They have the additional problem of ensuring high ratings. Criticizing the government's steps in fighting crime is just not very popular, especially when they are sanctioned by both sides of the political spectrum.
bigbrother?
> how long do you think until we see similar measures in high-crime American cities?"
What are you, kidding? I know downtown Ottawa's under video watch of the RCMP, and has been for years. Do you really think New York isn't? You don't need a blimp; there are a lot of very tall buildings around, not to mention the actual helicopters...
Add to that the thousands upon thousands of private or corporate cameras in the area... there's probably more video data being produced every day in New York than the entire pre-Gutenberg written works of the world.
What was the *US* reason for invading again?
The US President has that power, he doesn't even need asking Congress.
That's the difference between parliementary and presidential democracy.
And HITLER was elected too. Do you what percentage he got? 95.7% When you are a ruler for life you are a Dictator. It doesn't matter if you were elected.
You lose, fucktard, Hitler got at most 30% of the votes IIRC. He was appointed chancellor, not elected. From there he dismantled the parliament, and got away with those pesky votes.
I happen to *live* in Caracas, and the prevailing view is not one of the government spying on us (we have lower standards regarding privacy than the US or European countries), but many rather view this as an utterly useless expense. Besides the simple fact that a manageable number of balloons cannot possibly watch every alley and corner:
Then there's the certainty that the balloons will be shot at for the sheer fun of it, as a huge inflatable Santa deployed every year on the side of a building can attest to. The balloons are naturally partitioned to account for that, but given a finite number of compartments and a practically endless supply of bullets and shooters...
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
I'd expect acoustic gunfire detection/location systems to be part of the original package on similar platforms deployed by US law enforcement, rather than upgrades.
Ground-based acoustic gunfire locators (with multiple widely-spread sensors running software similar to earthquake-analysis to identify the source location) have been a disaster.
They were installed in Menlo Park, near East Palo Alto. They did a great job of spotting the location of a gunshot. Or any other impulse noise. Police response to holiday firing of guns into the air resulted in a number of gun confiscations and a great reduction of the (largely Chicano) tradition.
But they're more of an aid to the crooks than they are to the cops. After they'd been in use for a bit the cops noticed that they'd "hear" a gunfight on one side of town, scramble the available units to the area, and find nothing. Meanwhile, while the cops were all on that side of town, there'd be a rash of criminal activity on the other side. Oops! The crooks had figured out that you could clear an area of cops by faking gunshots elsewhere.
Of course this is not the sort of thing one emphasizes in one's sales literature. So it hasn't stopped other cities from springing for systems. (For instance: Oakland just installed one, to the tune of $350,000.)
Acoustic gunfire location systems also require considerable separation between the sensors. So it's not the sort of thing you install on ONE airship. If you've already got one on the ground, the airship can carry an extra microphone or two to aid in triangulation. But for airborne-only you'd need at least three craft to do the job.
But shots AT the craft are necessarily in view. An infrared bullet-backtrack system could pinpoint the shooter AND identify that he had actually taken a shot AT the craft.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Then gird up, boys -- we're losing our asses over there, so it's only a matter of time. Better get your guns now, before the VA Tech thing turns into mandatory stripping of our citizens of all personal arms.
These three airships that Caracas town council has just bought from South Korea (and hope to begin using in late 2007) are essentially mobile cameras. They are not really any more or less disturbing than the proliferation of CCTV cameras in our cities.
As a civil libertarian, I am in favour of strict limits on the amount of video surveillance that we are subject to, but I do not wish to jump to conclusions regarding a city council who are no doubt making a good-faith attempt to reduce crime in a very dangerous area.
Above all, this should not be used as a vile pretext to demonise President Hugo Chávez, who, despite his myriad flaws, is the leader with the strongest democratic support anywhere in the New World. Bear in mind, in particular, that the argument "many dictators started off by being elected" can be used against any elected president in the entire world, and is therefore worthless.
(Additional information from this article in Spanish.)
The article fails to mention that one of the chief aims of the airship will be to spot acts of bribery and corruption. Which, of course, is why it will be called the Graft Zeppelin
.Soylent Green is peoplicious!
Well said. Never let the parrots repeat that crap without correcting them.
Its nice the Venezuelan givernment gives their citizens something to shoot at :)
i bet the US of A already has blimps over all of venezuela, monitoring them for your security.
Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour - to this day no really knows why Adolf took that route, if he hadn't the prevailing sentiment at the time would have most likely seen the US continue to provide material assistance to the UK, but nothing else, while they concentrated on the Japanese war, leaving the UK to fight on for a hell of a lot longer. Vietnam wasn't so much about helping the French as stopping communism - in 1945 the State Department went out of it's way to make life as uncomfortable for the European nations trying to reimpose colonial rule across parts of Southern Asia - it was only when the red menace was spotted that the US started sending in advisors. I would recommend reading Street without Joy for an excellent overview of the situation in the early 1960's in Vietnam.
We all know how cozy the relationship is between Venezuela and the US administration.
I, for one, welcome our new Zeppelin overlords.
Take a look at the facts about this before you make an ass of yourself.
Then let Mark Steyn explain it to you:"According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, between 1973 and 2002 Russia supplied 57 percent of Iraq's arms, France 13 percent, China 12 percent, Brazil 2 percent . . . Brazil? Hang on, where's Washington? Where's London? Well, it turns out Brazil supplied more arms to Iraq than America and Britain combined. London and Washington between them account for less than 2 percent of the Iraqi dictatorship's weapons; the parties that met on Friday [Germany, France, Russia]account for three-quarters.
"Les Anglo-Saxons" are not perfect. But if the alternative is the French, who never met a dictator they didn't like, then Bush and Blair are the best hope of mankind. France, Germany, Russia, Belgium and Canada are not on the side of peace or morality or the Iraqi people. The pictures from the streets of Baghdad make that plain.
On the other hand, they're cheerfully on the side of Total-Fina-Elf, the Western corporation closest to Saddam Hussein. Total had secured development rights to 25 percent of Iraqi oil reserves, a deal that depended on Saddam remaining in power. TotalFinaElf's largest shareholder is a subsidiary of Montreal's Power Corp. Power Corp's co-chief executives are Paul Desmarais Jr., who sits on the Total board, and his brother Andre Desmarais. Andre Desmarais' father-in-law is the prime minister of Canada, Jean Chretien. Canada a refused to join the war to liberate Iraq on "principle."
Got that? For months, the anti-war crowd has insisted that "it's all about oil," that the only reason the Iraqi people were being "liberated" was so that the second biggest oil reserves in the world could be annexed in perpetuity by Dick Cheney and Halliburton and the rest of Bush's Texas oil patch gang. Instead, it turns out that, if it is all about oil, then the principal North American beneficiary of the continued enslavement of the Iraqi people is the family of the Canadian prime minister-that's to say, his daughter and his grandchildren."
Too much Law; not enough Order.
You make some good points (kudos!) and actually sound pretty intelligent... until you have to resort to foul language and name calling. It's really not appreciated here. Then you sound like any of the thousands of young arrogant liberal bloggers out there that think they have the total right to spew their libby rhetoric about like a popping, infected boil. I think it is tremendously funny how when a liberal-minded (oxymoron?) person rants and raves their opinion it is unanimously accepted, but the first time someone opposes their point of view they always try to invalidate that person's RIGHT to state their opinion. Even if the previous commenter has not served in the military, they can still be educated and have an opinion on the subject. And calling our military stupid like that ("uneducated poor"), well, that is totally not cool. Is this John Kerry? Didn't you learn your lesson yet?
... our new illegal alien overlords. Actually, (and I am sure I will be in the minority here), I believe that if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to fear. Bring on the cameras, blimps, UAV's, wiretapping, I'll take it all on. If someone wants to spy or eavesdrop on my otherwise boring, mundane, and uneventful life, their welcome to it! :)
Elmer Fud: It's Black Helicopter season!
Daffy Duck: It's Blimp season!
Elmer Fud: It's Black Helicopter season!
Daffy Duck: It's Blimp season!
Elmer Fud: It's Blimp season!
Daffy Duck: It's Black Helicopter season!
Elmer Fud: My name is Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, I am a dictator. I own a masion and a yacht... and a blimp.
"Fear is the rootkit of democracy.." Blarkon
It's for your protection!
Read about it http://www.exile.ru/2006-October-06/venezuela_ench ilada_of_evil.htmlVenezuela: Enchilada of Evil
I think this "news" about Venezuela isn't just more than propaganda against Venezuelan Government, let's me explain something first: in Venezuela there is no Dictatorship, what we have in Venezuela it's a total disorder an caothic situation where everyone makes everything but anything he wants. There is no such a "Big brother" thing in Venezuela, it is just ridiculous, it is just not possible, we do not have the technologies that "the developed world" has, the Venezuelan government do not look after personal information, emails, mails, telephone calls, etc under any circumstances. I think this plan developed by the Caracas Town hall (or mayorship) it is just a crazy idea and a nest of corruption like everything in Venezuela, that would not help against "our security", what could help is reducing consumerism, poverty, arms licensing control and among all of those things: control of the government "big check account". So please, if anyone wants to make a comment about Venezuela should read a little bit more and do not let it go just like that, reading propaganda against one of the most furious opponents of Bush international policy.
Committing virtually all of our military strength to an area, that, before we went there, wasnt a threat. Giving other places (Iran anyone?) who are a threat to us, a much greater sense of security, in threatening us
Iran is imho even a lesser threat then Iraq was a few years ago, i can't understand why people seem to fall for the same mistake again after Iraq. Even if Iran will get a nuclear weapon, it is foolish to think the people there are so mad/dumb to actually use it.
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
The April 2007 Popular Mechanics said US Border Patrol is already running UAVs on sections of the US Mexico border, and with the help of the UAVs they are catching drug smugglers and illegal immigrants.
FAA approval has to be granted before UAV can fly anywhere in the US. I suppose it would be easier to get permissioni to fly a slow moving or fairly stationary airship in a populated area than it would be for a plane.
Big Brother loves you.
The only reason this idea would fly here in the US is if some contractor talked the government into it.
We already have an army of eyes in the form of various roadway, convenience store and other surveillance cameras in place; an army which will only grow larger over time.
Not saying I like the idea, but if one did want to keep tabs on a large geographical area, rather than spend a bunch of money on blimps & their operators, it would make a lot more sense to just network the resources we already have in place.
We pretty much know how to make radio very hard to jam now - use some form of spread spectrum, either frequency hopping or direct sequence.
Xenu loves you!
"Dude" I don't smoke pot and most likely I am older than you, and have watched things change, bercause I pay attention and have been paying attention for half a century now. Believe me, it is not getting any better on the political freedom scene, and the "accountability" of elected officials is about nil, and the mainstream press has turned into quivering lapdogs. Even nixon had the guts to finally quit when he got busted for being an illegal jerk when some truthiness finally came out, but the current last few crops of high level pols have all done much worse than nixon did, and nothing happens to them, no accountability of note.
When I was a younger man, such bigbro action as random roadblocks didn't exist, because only evil dictatorships did stuff like that. That was taught in the schools. We didn't have cameras everywhere staring at you, and so on, right up and down the list. This phony "terrorism" crap is designed to be terroristic against the US people, it is used as the excuse for these "gents" to do whatever the hell they feel like doing. And they are.
And it isn't paranoia when the stuff you are talking about is real, just noting the data and coming to some obvious conclusions. Ike DID warn about what was going to happen and it IS happening, it was a rather strong and much discussed speech back then, it shocked people, and today it IS coming from the "gents" he warned about, the powerful mil/industrial complex-now quite transnational in scope and power- and the influence they have in and out of government(s), it overlaps now so much there is no practical difference, we are about totally a fascist corporatacracy now. This "election" stuff is the real dog and pony show, part of the bread and circuses dodge, designed to keep their serfs amused so they think they still have some say in how they are "governed", or how it should be termed more accurately, "ruled over".
OK, this is the theory, it is different from today's practice (unfortunately, IMO), but I will attempt to correct a misconception about the US Constitution which is widespread and totally incorrect.
Basic data point you REALLY need to grok. chew on this until you "get it". This is very important and something I notice almost all foreigners and very few people inside the US for that matter really understand, because the elites don't want them to understand it, so they go way out of their way to brainwash people against it starting the first week in school.
The Constitution does NOT grant any individual rights to people, zero.
We are BORN with them.
If the constitution didn't exist, we would still have those rights (as do all peoples, but most places the government will not recognize that because it cuts into their controlling turf scene).
The Bill of Rights-the first ten "amendments", are a very basic minimal and partial list that was written up PRECISELY to give some examples so that the original meaning could never be lost or altered. The Constitution is by and large a list of stuff the "government" is never supposed to infringe upon. By default, all rights reside with "we, the People", and we the people granted government certain limited functions and duties, WE granted THEM some "rights", which they are supposed to strictly adhere to.
It's bass-ackwards now, "government" assumes they have all the rights, and sells or offers "permission" back to the people to do this or that.
And that's what's wrong in a nutshell.
The US is the only nation-to this day the ONLY nation- ever to adopt the concept of the sovereign individual, as opposed to some ruling class who are the sovereigns. It is that simple. I propose a return to that concept, and elimination of today's current political reality, which I have termed "Technofeudalism".
Don't be so naive'. They are no different than the planes that patrol our cities now. You are a victim of Bushite Propaganda, because gas sells at the pump in Venzuela for $00.12 a gallon. YES, twelve cents a gallon. It sold for $00.05 cents a gallon in Iraq before the war and it sells for the price of a Candy Bar now in Syria and Iran. NOW DO YOU get it? The Bushites want to attack every nation which sells gas cheap. It costs, post production, at the pump, $1.00-$1.50 a BARREL, YES A BARREL NOT A GALLON, to bring Sweet oil to the pump (per BARREL) and you are paying $3.25 a GALLON. Get the picture? Wake Up!
The obvious solution is to use multiple airships, and put a sensor on each one of them.
Weapons location radar (artillery hunting radar) are btw usually single point systems, but those are probably not very practical for locating hand gun firefights in a city.
This feature has been the primary exploit hacked by our Fearless Leaders in all of my lifetime. The voters ARE a bit ubermensch, IMHO, hence they Tivo Jerry and arrive ready to do the bidding of their Corporate Masters. I have been a poll worker for many years, and you really do get a broad cross-section of the electorate. That means of course that the overwhelming majority know absolutely nothing about almost anything pertinent, but hold strong opinions of enough diversity to ensure that correctness has no bearing on any decision of consequence. This is why we must bring Democracy to the economically important regions of the world.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
"Venezuela's National Assembly has given initial approval to a bill granting the president the power to bypass congress and rule by decree for 18 months." BBC, Jan 2007
Dictator refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state. Chavez is a dictator.
but if he gives us airships, I could learn. Those things are awesome.
He has a right to an opinion. As long as he was just stating an opinion, I made a point of just describing how he was wrong.
The vulgarity was invoked when he started talking, as though he were in fact doing something, in support of this chosen war. See, the vast, VAST majority of people who talk about how "we have to fight it there, or else we will have to fight it here", aren't, in fact, doing SQUAT to support the war. See, when you aren't doing a thing to support a war, or the soldiers in that war, then, it is obscene to put yourself in the group that is suffering in the pursuit of that war. Look, if he is a soldier, or, heck, even if he makes a point of supporting his local VA or some such, then hey, I was out of line. However. In this country, the people actually suffering because of the war have very little voice (there aren't soldier PAC's, and, in many ways, there shouldn't be. For an army to work, it is problematic, if the soldiers in that army are politically active, because, well, there really needs to be a strict chain of command, and politically active people...tend to have strong allegiances to their organizations. Which often conflicts with their orders. And for an army to work, soldiers have to mostly just obey orders). And for someone, who isn't actually part of that group, to claim membership in that group, when they systematically ignore that group. Well, that is pretty obscene. And I will (rightly) call such a person an arrogant self-serving pathetic little shit.
As to the bit about Kerry. I didn't call them stupid. Neither did Kerry. Kerry said, that at this point, you would have to BE stupid to join the army. I think what he said was pretty dumb. I mean, I agree with him, but I think it was stupid to say it. The way we treat soldiers is disgusting. But, I didn't say they are stupid. I said they are poor and uneducated. And, well, that is just true. I don't think there is anything wrong with coming from a poor family. I think people who try to work their way out of poverty by joining the army are probably doing the best they can. Do you think there is something wrong with being poor and uneducated? What isn't cool is that the burden of this war is placed on the poor and uneducated. What isn't cool is that if you work for private contractors, driving Trucks in Iraq, you are making $120k+, and who knows what that contractor is billing the government. That working for Blackwater, you can make $300k, again, who knows what the Gov. is being billed. But, if you are actually a soldier, you are making $30k. That isn't cool. That if you are a soldier, and you get wounded, the army doesn't take care of your family. They don't make it possible for your family to be with you while recover.
You want to attack my invective? That is fine. But know, that while you are attacking how I say something, you are ignoring the obscenity that is happening. You want to attack how I say something? What about responding to what I said? What about responding to the horror that is war? How we treat our soldiers is disgusting. What we make them do is disgusting. (yes. Sending soldier insufficiently supported into urban areas, where they don't speak the language is putting them in positing where they are going to make a LOT of mistakes. And when a soldier makes a mistake, people die. Look, war is terrible. I don't think that is a reason not to engage in war. But to be so goddamn flippant about it, is gross. And lets not pretend the pursuit f this war has been much, other than flippant. Not sending enough soldiers into an urban area is Flippant. Not making sure those soldiers are at least proficient in the language is not taking the realities of urban "warfare" seriously. You need a LOT of soldiers, to hold an urban area. We had 400+ soldiers to secure ~8 square blocks in Hebron. Well, other areas were also marginally in our patrol area. And at least 30 of those 400 were proficient in Arabic. And ALL of us had 20+ phrases we could use ("SHUT UP" "ARMS UP" "PULL
Listen. It isn't the same "mistake" at all. The IAEA was saying "we need time, we don't see any evidence of them having WMA. We cant rule out his having them, but we don't think so." Part of why we invaded Iraq, is cause we knew we could win (and, we did win, against the Iraqi Army. That wasn't a huge problem.). Part of the problem with Iran, (and similarly with N. Korea) is that we DON'T know that we could hadily win the war (against their Army).
Listen. Saddam wasn't delcaring war against the US. Iran, has been calling us the Great Satan. They call for the destruction of "the little Satan" (that would be Israel). They are actively involved in supporting, equipping and training various groups in Iraq and Lebanon. Comparing Iran, who is well funded, militarily viable, actively supporting militias in foreign countries, and likely building a nuclear weapon (they don't need reactors for enegry, and they rejected an offer for a reactor that would have sealed fuel, which would get returned to Russia when it was spent) to Iraq, who was, relatively quiet. Well, that is... a little foolish. Look, I hate war. I do. But, there are things that are, unfortunate, but needful. I am not yet Convinced that Iran is one of them. But, to say that Iran is just like Iraq. Well, it was wrong 4 years ago, and its wrong now. Iran was much more dangerous than Iraq, and still is.
Thanks for your great reply! I respectfully disagree with your point in paragraph one (not counting the first line you posted as a paragraph). Whether you are for the war or against the war, everyone is entitled to state their opinion. I may not agree with you on a point, but I cannot say that you do not have the right to your opinion. I am an American, and I am assuming you are too. As Americans, we have the right to free speech. Someone's opinion can seem ridiculous, stupid, outright wrong, but that someone has the right to say it whether I agree or not. To say that someone does not have the right to express their opinion ("we have to fight it there, or else we will have to fight it here") just because they are not now or haven't previously been in the Armed Forces is wrong. Sorry. As an American citizen, I've paid my taxes every year. I am educated. I have consistently voted. If I was drafted I would have fought. I seriously considered joining the military as a career but decided that I would prefer a different career. I believe as an American citizen, I can state my opinion on the war, agree or disagree, even though I was never a soldier. Are you not allowed to have an opinion on abortion rights because you are not (assumed) a woman? Can you see my point? I see your points in paragraph 2. I think many of the points you post show the sadder part of big business and possible government corruption. But I'd like to see statistics to backup the belief that the military are "poor and uneducated". I've read that there is a huge percentage of people that enlist because of the career options it can open up to them. Many are even college educated nowadays. I think it is wrong to stereotype or label a group of people like that and it offends the dignity of so many that are doing so much to protect our country, so much more than you or I are doing! (Not to say that we don't have a right to express our opinion, back to paragraph one). Paragraph 3: I did not mean to attack your invective or anything else. I was just trying to get you to stay on point, with intelligence and respect. You are much more convincing when you refrain from the typical expletive laden blogger rant. That is, if you are trying to make a sincere point, and I believe you were. I know this is a subject that can be very emotionally charged, but we "are all adults here" (I think). Otherwise I agree with your points in the paragraph. Well put, and sad facts to admit. Do we fault GWB for putting the soldiers on the ground in Iraq or the Senators that intentionally try to de-fund the war effort? It sounds to be like you blame the latter (which I agree with, but I am sure most fault GWB for everything from Global Warming to the Iraq war, to the stubbed toe they get when they wake up in the morning). Paragraph 4: I actually work for a non-profit agency and I see the uneducated poor every day. I bet you can't even say that. (I don't believe you can't have an opinion on the subject though just because you don't {back to paragraph one}). I again respectfully disagree with you on this point. The Army is not the only entity that goes to war, a country goes to war. America as a whole is at war. We (all America) make sacrifices along with our soldiers and need to be more supportive. Sacrifices we make during wartime are more along the lines of financial sacrifice (I am sure you are not thrilled about our nations increasing debt, but that is part of the price we pay). Sorry, but calling our soldiers "poor and uneducated" does not come off as being supportive. And I did not say it is disgraceful to be poor and uneducated, that is your attempt at twisting my words around. Not nice! In closing, some very good points and I respect you for not attacking me. Keep up the good work! God bless America!
Again, I didn't say he doesn't have a right to an opinion. Nor did I say he cant say it. Where I go ballistic, is when he includes himself, amongst those pursuing this war.
One of the terrible disgraces of this war, and to some extant Vietnam, is that, no, We haven't gone to war as a country. The fact is we have had our taxes CUT, we don't support out soldeirs, we don't give them adequate HealthCare, we don't give them sufficient post-injury support or career re-training, we dont have even a tenth of the psychological support they need (after WWII you had 2-3 months, after combat, to decompress, talk with people in non-threatening enviornmets, before you could get home. Today? 2 days after gearing up for a patrol, you are home) available to them. We haven't given them a command structure (how is it possible that a couple of seargants and corporals are the ones "responsible" for what happened at Abu Ghraib? Look, the chain of command means that I have to listen to my commanders. But, it also means, they are responsible for me. In large measure, they are responsible for what I do. Systemic Torture happens in a prison, and that HAS to be the fault of at MINIMUM a Colonel. The fact that no Captain/Major was supervising these soldiers, is a disgrace, and thoroughly absolves them of most of their responsibilities. Soldiers, are for the most part little boys and little girls, far from home, who are scared. That isn't a knock on them. For an army to work, its front line needs to be made up of people who will do what they are told. You leave them unsupervised, that is YOUR fault. I am not saying they should be completely absolved. But they were NOT provided with the support structure they needed. That isn't their fault. Excpecting them to cope, is absurd.). We (STIL!!!) aren't giving them body armor. We (STILL!!!!) are sending them on patrol in un-armored Hummers. When we, as a country, are failing our soldiers so terribly, cutting taxes, enriching oil companies, and private contractors, while turning our collective backs on our soldiers, no-one who isn't either a soldier, or actually involving themselves in supporting the VA, has ANY business describing themselves as part of the group who is at war. We are in no way, in this was as a country. This is largely our administrations fault.
I wholly support congress for telling the president "you cannot keep our troops deployed indefinitely". Bush has been abusing our soldiers for 4 years. The monies that are getting spent, the hundreds of billions of dollars, that are getting spent, well, I cant tell you where they are going. But it isnt to the soldiers.
Again, I wasn't in the American Army, but, well, the ceramic plates that we wore (we had the short ones, the USA is STILL trying to get our troops the long ones) ran ~$400/plate. The long ones are supposed to be ~$800/plate. 2 plates for front and back. ~$1600/soldier.
So we have 150k soldiers in Iraq? So we need there 150k*$1600? Say 200k * $2000. Half a Billion Dollars? And we still haven't outfitted every soldier with full body armor?
Listen. We went into this war WAY understaffed. To be there, we are STILL way understaffed. If the president called for putting 450k troops on the ground, he might get my support. I think at this point, it is too late for that. I think Iraq is having a civil war, and I don't think we can stop it. There is no way we can stop it with the troop levels we have there. I have seen nothing which suggests that anyone in this administration takes seriously the terrors of what war means. They disdain this administration heaps on our soldiers, in actions, if not in words, is truly obscene. At this point, my feeling is very much, just get them home. They aren't being given the tools they need. The "surge" is a joke. Raise the Troop level by 20%? Bringing it back to where it was in 2005? It wasn't enough then, why should it be enough now?
Listen, if it were important to this administration to WIN, they would send in enough troo
Dude - this is Venezuela with its own special form of Imperium. What part of "dictator for life Chavez" did we not understand?
All people are born with their rights (we hold these truths to be self-evident"..and etc), but in most cases the entrenched power elite assholes just insist on being bullies or worse. Back in history or right now, doesn't matter. Yes, serfs in medieval times had rights, they just got bullied out of them by stronger forces composed of serious badguy loonies.
If you have to fight, you have to fight, that's how it goes. Fighting with the spoken word, the pen, the keyboard and petition and ballot, or pitchforks, the sword, the musket or whatever...about the same in the long run. You, me, all of us collectively the humanity of "we", are born with our human rights, and must always struggle to maintain them. People who try to insist that you have no born with rights, and work to restrict them, try to be some sort of "more human that you, you filthy untermenschen!" or "shutup and just follow orders!", are, in my opinion, a waste of oxygen, feudal overlord jerks fit for nothing but being pike decorations, as in "heads on pikes". People who get faked out that they have no rights and must go pleading with bowed head and downcast eyes to their "masters" or voluntarily give up their rights for some other obscure reason are called "subjects" or serfs or slaves.
But they still have rights, even if they can't exercise them at some point in time. When they can't, they need to fight if that is what it takes to get them back. And that's it.
It sucks it has to be that way, it sucks that there has always been this feudal overclass who dig on that power over other humans, but so it goes. I didn't design the system, just notice how it works from reading history and looking around and paying attention during contemporary times.
More excellent points, and some I can't deny. It still seems to me like you are indicating that you believe that we should have put many more troops on the ground, which is surprising but refreshing to hear. I think GWB did he best he could, based on the advice he was given by the Generals and other "experts". Also I am sure he tried to do this in a "balanced" way, in other words if he even thought about deploying twice or three times the amount of troops initially he would have had his head handed to him by the Senate (as they are trying to do now as he pushes for a troop surge).
Regardless, it will be interesting to see where this takes us. I honestly am not an expert on the war (or wars in general) but pray we did the right thing. I do believe that something positive has come out of this as we have not had any more terrorist attacks on America.
I am curious (kind of off topic) to hear your opinion about the situation brewing in Iran. Should be get involved? Ahmadinejad scares the xxxx out of me whenever I read his comments.
The mistake many Western liberals make is assuming that everyone else thinks the same way they do.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Theo van Gogh (my fellow countrymen btw) or his murderer dont have anything to do with the Iranian government, i hope you see the difference between a (non-Iranian) person and a (Iranian) state.
The other two examples are a bit more fitting, but you can't seriously compare organizing a protest against cartoons with actually using a nuclear bomb. Even the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, as much as bad as it is, is completely out of the same league.
With announcing a fatwa, which was mostly a political action, not a religious one, the risk is some economic sanctions and a bit of diplomatic stress at most.
Consider what would happen if Iran would use a nuclear bomb against Israel, which has nuclear bombs too. It would be assurance for complete destruction of Iran by Israeli and perhaps American nukes and losing the political support of all/almost every nation on Earth, probably even the Palestinians and neighbour countries as they will be heavily hit by any fall-out caused by the bomb. The Iranian Ayatollah's, who are more driven by power then by religion like most of the religious leaders do, do know that very well and will know it's a path leading to complete self destruction.
Hell, even the former evil Soviet empire didnt use their vast arsenal of nukes during the height of the Cold War, why would a tiny country with one or two bombs even try to hit much more powerful nations? There's nothing to gain there, and the Iranians know that better then you do.
Stop hating people just because your television and government tells you to. This is not about religion, its just an every-day political game to turn the peoples minds from domestic problems, both in the US as in Iran.
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
I know Iran is supporting terrorist groups in Iraq and Lebanon, but i would like you to remember the US and other western countries did and still does this too. Think of Pakistan and Turkmenistan, both militaristic dictatorships supported just because they happen to be strategically important for Afghanistan. Think of Osama, Saddam and all the rebel movements in Africa and South America which happened to be funded or supplied with arms by the US in your forgotten history. So this seems not a really valid argument to me as a reason to invade a country, or we should queue up in front of the US borders too ;)
It is true Iran does not necessarily need the nuclear power, but hey, its their country, if they want nuclear power they have the right to get it. Russia has vast gas and oil resources too, is that a reason to step up and deny them nuclear power also? Apart from that, yes Iran does not have the right to build nukes, as they signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, but there is no actual proof of them building a nukes.
Regarding the issue of having a nuclear weapon and the big step to actually use it i want to point you on this post
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
You just proved my point exactly.Double arrogance - first giving orders and second assuming anyone who has a different opinion to you is brainwashed. You couldn't be wrong, could you?
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
I said that everyone has born with rights, but sometimes you have to fight to maintain them. That isn't "wishful thinking" and your analogy is just silly, apples and oranges, I am just stating observable hard data, recorded in history and viewable in contemporary times.
And yes,I will agree on that point, because it is true, even by the people who first wrote it, some were excluded *illegally*, it is an exception that was inherently and completely wrong at the time, and those affected by that exclusion and others who were sympathetic and took the entire meaning to heart had to fight..myself included on that issue, back in "contemporary" times if you count some decades ago now, I am a civil rights worker from way back, I've taken the serious abuse from the corrupt and illegitimate "authority", those mouth breather sadistic goons (every culture breeds bullies sad to say) who work and "follow orders", from their "superiors", the elite feudalistic scumbags who sought (and still seek, this struggle isn't over yet) to continually deny human rights to others,so they can be "the masters', or "the lords", or whatever term they use, that keeps changing, but not the cultural mindset of their over-lording ways, based on nothing more than their personal and quite insane whims, their megalomania, and a lot of corrupt and heinous and misguided aggressive force.
It had to be resisted going back in history. And it still does need to be resisted, on any number of issues. Yes, you have to fight, with the spoken word, the ballot, sometimes physically, and so it goes. We haven't eliminated aggression and greed from Humans' DNA, so..self defense is still necessary, in whatever form that needs to take.
Number six said it in few words, "I am a Free Man, I am not a number!"
You are more than welcome to remain a "subject", that is your choice if you really wish it. Millions more do not believe that way, and all of us, whether we want it or not, are born with our human rights and dignity. From one second after birth, that dignity and those rights remain in peril. And such as it is, once you are aware, of that age and mentality, it becomes a personal issue that is also part of the greater collective gestalt on rights. You can choose to participate if it is valuable to you-or not, but you still have those same human rights.
Have you ever been accused of being patronising?
No, and i was just pointing out that mentioning van Gogh has nothing to do with the subject. Why is that patronising?
And not the death of the target?
I'm not saying i don't care about his possible death, but individuals are rarely important enough to influence state politics.
The risk for the Iranian government in case he actually get killed will be minor, incomparable with complete self destruction.
You're assuming they don't want to die. Perhaps you wouldn't launch a missile at Isreal for fear of retaliation. But as 9-11, London and Madrid show, death is not a deterrent for those who think they're going to an afterlife full of sweet cakes and little boys to molest.
Your main flaw is comparing the Iranian government with terrorist groups. While its true they support groups with individuals willing to die for their cause, you can be pretty sure the Iranian government and ayatollahs just want to stay in power, not to die for it or risk losing control. You are mixing political rhetorics with actual beliefs, meanwhile just intended for both parties to distract the John Doe from domestic problems and to keep them in power. There's no difference in that between Iran and a lot of other countries.
Repeat after me: We are all individuals