And why would a huge corporate company make noise about criminal activity done by one of their possible advertisers, or someone with connections in Washington? They wait until the feds start busting them up. That way, you know they don't have any leverage inside the beltway, and there's nothing you can do to save them anyway.
When the feds are bought and paid for, and the media is bought and paid for, mainstream media becomes an outlet for AP stories that don't offend anyone.
Kennedy wasn't a great president. His administration supported MLK only when it was forced to by public opinion. He continued the idiotic tradition of using the CIA to subvert foreign government, though he may have changed his mind on that after the Bay of Pigs. And thankfully, he was intelligent enough to empathize with the Russian position on missile placement. If Reagan or Bush had been in the White House at that point, their idiotic cowboy attitude could very well have destroyed the planet.
Either way, his foreign policy is not that different from the PNAC cabal. When it suits the US for political or financial gain, send in the troops, but back in those days it barely required a pretext. But when it came down to it, he left every option on the table, including the most effective one: diplomacy.
I guess you could say that the embargo started out as a Democratic conspiracy, and when Republicans started following the same foreign policy for their own reasons, it continued. America could learn quite a few things from Cuba, not only in regards to their health care system, but also in the ways that they survived peak oil after the collapse of the Soviet Union - the first industrial society to do so, as far as I know.
As recent polls show, a majority of Americans hate Fidel even though they believe Cuba will remain the same without him, the result of decades of character assassination trying to undermine his government. They also favor restoration of diplomatic relations, which means very little to the politicians still in charge. Cuba represents independence from American influence to the whole of Latin America, and it's only 90 miles from Key West. Punishing their society for refusing to let our corporations into their market is far more important than anything else, especially the freedom and prosperity of the average Cuban citizen.
Someone whose existence centers around materialism obviously doesn't work in a communal setting. Some people don't mind sharing books, music, and even televisions with people in their community. They may even see it as sign of a healthy society.
Oddly enough you disprove your own sentiment by stating that everyone has to share the finite radio spectrum, which is true. Just remember that everything is finite as far as humans are concerned. The main difference between the population voting for who gets the spectrum, and the FCC declaring where it will be allocated, is that there's a chance the people with all of the capital won't get what they want out of a democratic vote. Therefore it isn't allowed.
How exactly are you connecting FISA and Constantinople?
Furthermore, to reduce your argument to a meaningful state, you seem to believe that the rule of law is inadequate for the US Government. If that's the case, what options are left besides dictatorship?
The real problem you seem to have is that, for the first time in history, the people we trample on for resources and profit are actually fighting back. Here's an idea: remove our military forces from the middle east and see if the situation improves. However, in the language of conquistadors and colonialists, this would represent defeat.
Then I hand them an after action report from the CIA released under the FOIA concerning the overthrow of the government of Iran, known as TPAJAX. I quote, with some pointers and emphasis:
"In July support was sought from the PW [Psychological Warfare] Staff. Both the branch [of the CIA] and higher levels were anxious to have certain items, including the texts of news articles, commentaries and editorials, appear in papers in this country... This support was not forthcoming. It appeared to the branch as if the staff lacked contacts capable of placing material so the American publisher was unwitting as to it's source, as well as being able to see that no changes in theme or emphasis were made. In contrast to this relatively ineffective venture, the Iran desk of the State Department was able to place a CIA study in Newsweek, using the normal channel of desk officer to journalist... it does appear that some improvement of capabilities might be desirable. Either those contacts used to secure the unwitting publication of material should be expanded and improved, or else there should be provision made for passing material directly to cleared editors and owners of press media."
This operation was carried out, according to the report, with 89 persons aware of it, which was "excessive."
So, yes, there is no doubt that a small number of CIA agents illegally ousted a democratic government, using the media as part of their PsyOps. To think that such operations are not part of the government's current arsenal is completely naive.
I can ask the question: "what is natural selection?" and get a reasonably precise answer.
I can ask the question: "what is God?" and spend years getting no answer.
Natural selection is something that can be subjected to the scientific method. God cannot be subjected to the scientific method. So even if you are right and God is responsible, God is still not science. You can teach ID in a philosophy class, and say it's an alternative theory to science. That's fine. Just keep it out of science textbooks, because God is not and never will be science.
The real reason you cannot teach intelligent design in school is because there is no difference in the following answers to the question, "how did life come to be?"
1) God did it. 2) We don't know.
So, teaching intelligent design doesn't get you anywhere. If you'd like to live in a place where the government and religious leaders decide school curriculum together, I hear that Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are lovely this time of year.
Someone, somewhere, will claim that this does not help solve the gasoline problem. Please read the above link, which states that current off-peak electricity could power nearly 200 million PHEVs, according to the DOE. Adding green energy sources will greatly reduce pollution in urban areas when combined with ultra low or zero emission transit.
We'd still have somewhat of an oil problem, but commuting can be covered by existing electric infrastructure.
Of course if you would get your head out of your ass and look around every once in a while, you'd realize that humans are very good at problem solving. A 90 mile range car, plugged in at night when many businesses are closed, would cover the needs of much of the population. Taxi drivers can use technology already in use in one of the poorest countries in the world, and with some sensible urban planning most of us can walk around instead of wasting energy driving. Remember, the same caloric content of a gallon of gas could get you a few thousand miles if you use your legs.
The reason it's not being done is because gasoline cars make a lot of money, because they're extremely inefficient and expensive to maintain. And because the corporate non-hippies bitch and moan about mass transportation subsidies, despite the fact that it's more expensive to maintain roads and fight wars in the middle east, we end up with an extremely inefficient infrastructure that does not improve the quality of life.
Or the "to keep up appearances, the American government will be forced to give Iraqis some sort of democracy" Just like all the other countries the US invaded and won?
Are you naive enough to believe otherwise? Let's assume you're right, and Iraq has a flourishing democracy, and total control over their sovereign lands. Do you honestly believe they could sell Iran 550 metric tons of uranium without any consequence from our government? That's about as likely as them successfully removing our permanent military installations being built all over their country.
I'm amused that you don't even bring up Canada's part this. Maybe they truly are America's hat.
As long as the recipient didn't threaten US interests, it didn't matter where it went. Keep in mind who has military control over Iraq. Unsurprisingly, it isn't Iraqis.
But in case you don't believe me, In December 2006 and March 2007, the international community passed resolutions 1737 and 1747 respectively after Iran failed to comply with UN demands to halt the enrichment of uranium or to agree to full IAEA oversight of its nuclear program.
The hypocrisy of American foreign policy is well illustrated at the UN, where it has vetoed any resolution perceived as threatening itself or Israel. Take a look at the record yourself - it's very revealing. Compare the amount of resolutions against Iran versus those against Israel or other US allies, and the respective noise made about either side.
Unlike the United States government, I believe in the rule of law, and since the US government is failing spectacularly at meeting conditions of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, why would anyone else follow it? Iran has publicly declared they want to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and they claim they haven't been forthcoming to the IAEA because of their fear of western interference. I'm not saying I buy their claim, but the US has gone out of it's way to prevent Iran from accepting European security in exchange for taking delivery of nuclear material instead of manufacturing their own.
Iran knows the value of having a nuclear weapon. It's the difference between ending up like Iraq and ending up like North Korea. It's the illegal wars of aggression waged by the United States that make nuclear weapons so attractive.
Saying 100 is equal to 7 doesn't make 100 equal to 7.
Congratulations. You're the new poster child for most ironic non-sequitur.
Pretending that Bush = Saddam doesn't make it so.
Who is pretending? For their own cynical reasons, Bush and Saddam kill people to maintain power and (successfully or not) to get access to more resources for their state.
And? Every time some tool with this argument pipes up, I always think "so fucking what?" Despite what you people think, making a weapon available doesn't require its use. Saddam is responsible for USING the weapons, if he hadn't, they'd be sitting in a fucking ammo dump somewhere. People like you seem to think providing a sovereign state with weapons is equivalent to using them ourselves.
So, under your definition, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. After all, if Saddam had any nerve gas, and gave some to a terrorist nutjob, it's not his fault if they use the device in Grand Central Station. Proving weapons to people with ill intent is morally reprehensible, but I'm sure you'll continue to find a way to rationalize it to protect your plastic patriotism.
But as I've already shown you, 100 does not equal 7.
I'm just repeating this to embarrass you a second time.
THAT is the part that matters, please explain why you think it makes one difference where they came from?
Because not only did he purchase them from us, he used them while we continued to support him with money and weapons. So he wasn't hung for his crimes until it became useful to the interests of the United States. We could have easily cut off material support in the early eighties and allowed the Kurds to successfully defend themselves to stop the atrocities, but we didn't, for one reason: he was doing a great job of killing Iranians, and we didn't care what happened to Iraqis, whether Kurds, anti-Baathists, or the repressed Shia majority.
Yes very. But I'm smart enough to know the difference between someone who sells a knife and someone who uses it to skin a child alive. You don't appear to be that smart.
A more correct analogy would be giving a known sociopath automatic weapons and a room full of people, and telling him you wouldn't turn him in if he slaughtered them all.
And if you want to really know the truth, and know what your government does in order to keep it from you, you may remember the crying Kuwaiti girl on television, recounting the story of babies being taken out of incubators and left on the floor to die.
The girl was the daughter of a Kuwaiti diplomat, and she was lying.
In order to keep up appearances, the American government will be forced to give Iraqis some sort of democracy, and they (as a Shia majority) will absolutely elect someone friendly to their neighbor Iran. This was probably pre-emptive move to get the uranium out the grip of Tehran.
As we all know, countries cannot be left to conduct business on their own terms, because it could possibly be harmful to the only interests that matter: ours.
He doesn't feed people feet first into plastic shredders.
Instead, he authorizes war and they're blown up, crushed, finished off by treatable diseases, or flee their homes to live in squalor in refugee camps. He only presided the capture of 80,000 suspected terrorists, and only 150 have officially died in custody.
He doesn't use chemical weapons against citizens of his country.
The same members of his current administration authorized the sale of those weapons knowing full well what they'd be used for.
He doesn't have women raped and children tortured in front of their parents.
The lawyer (John Yoo) in charge of formally defining torture said that crushing a child's testicles or raping an infant shouldn't be illegal when trying to extract information from terrorists. They haven't, to public knowledge, done that yet, but they think they should be able to.
He's going to be out of office via the normal process come next January.
Hopefully he won't start a war with Iran before he's finally removed from power, whether directly or through our client state, Israel.
That list goes on and on as well, but to compare him to Saddam is disingenuous at best.
No. Our government supported Saddam Hussein, with money and weapons, during the worst of his atrocities when his father was vice president. The same group of people oversaw the war in the gulf, and returned for round three to complete the destruction of Iraqi society in order to establish control over the resources of that area.
When virtually the same administration supports a tyrant and then accuses him of being a tyrant as an excuse to decimate an entire country, there's no reason not to make the comparison. Were it not for American support of Saddam in the 80s, the Shah from 1953 to 1979, and our continuing support of Saudi Arabia, there may have been freedom in the middle east long ago.
Saddam simply did our dirty work for us, namely, suppressing the Shia minority and keeping Iran in check and Saudi Arabia less worried about an uprising in their own state. Now we're employing the same tactics in Baghdad for the surge, where one hundred thousand mercenaries, including Sunnis no longer allied with al Qaeda, have been given free reign to "establish order."
The hippies are the only reason your river doesn't look like the Yangtze. They're also the ones that were warning people of urban sprawl, inefficient cars and trucks, and pushing for mass transit.
They care about preserving resources, also known as conserving. I know the new conservative movement is totally ignorant of what that means, but it would be prudent to start learning.
Perhaps if we weren't spending 3 billion a week in Iraq, and driving large vehicles huge distances to grossly inefficient oversized houses, we'd be able to afford a heating oil subsidy until alternatives are available.
Yes. Please, give all of the little yuppie children with no jobs the opportunity to tag physical objects. What could possibly be more horrifying than MySpace? Importing it into the real world.
Of course, I could then color code the map to search for OMG PONIES strings, and have a better chance avoiding encounters with the unfortunate benefactors of the death of Darwinism. Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all.
One thing that I know for sure: Abercrombie and Fitch? Ground zero for Apocalypse Dumb.
I started a mail delivery system that relied on a complicated hierarchy of mostly management, lawyers, and other high level executives, leaving only 10% of the money that the business earned actually going to pay people who delivered the mail.
I'm shocked and disgusted that this new "e-mail" system gives my service away for free, and I'm going to use all of my bloated hierarchy's power to get a mail tax levied on all devices with a MAC address produced from here until Kingdom come!
Uh, Sally, we also need to post a memo to the Zionists to slow down a bit. No, he's on our rolodex. Cheney... right... and the rest of the APAIC. Oh, it's Obama now? What's the difference?
A bit tongue in cheek, but really... the RIAA is bloated, inefficient, and that's why they're suffering. Helping them with their distribution problem is no different from a government fuel subsidy for Walmart. If the market says the way you distribute media has no value, guess what! You don't get paid.
The RIAA doesn't produce anything of value. They're an organization that used to be necessary for distribution and promotion, who are no longer useful to anyone but acts with funding already like Hannah Montana. They are the Pony Express, and it's time for them to die.
Though we can get a good deal on XServes, I went with a Mac Pro just because of the hard drive lock in. 80GB for $200? Or 1TB for $450? It's just ridiculous.
How many economic disasters must occur due to speculative greed before the lesson is learned?
Here's an idea: you're a member of an oil cartel. Project that due to "demand" that oil will rise to $170 a barrel. Now watch your reserves gain 20% in value just because you said so.
This won't receive media coverage. The ecosystem of for-profit media, for-profit corporations, and for-profit government officials have no interest in their constituents.
They don't need their constituents.
The media will give you only two false options that have zero real policy differences, the gerrymandered lines ensure the "proper" parties are elected. They will avoid offending any of their advertisers by reporting things as unimportant as blatant vote-buying to purchase immunity. Instead we'll get to hear about things that are of no importance: sports, celebrity gossip, and political bickering that passes off as dialogue.
But hey, new iPhone next month! Who's already waiting in line? The best Germans will have theirs first...
Start spending money on domestic security instead of imperialism. Our military budget is nearing 700 billion per year. Even if that was only cut in half, and only ten percent of that was used on traditional police departments, you could open up ten police forces the size of the NYPD.
Or you could even do something crazy like invest in rehabilitation for non-violent criminals, and save our country 40k per year per head for those we're able to return back to society. Halfway houses are a lot cheaper than jail cells, and if they continue to commit crime, you're no worse than when you started.
That's what the populace would prefer. But here in the USA, our opinion doesn't count.
"After a thorough examination of every member of the group, the medical specialist stated, 'It is my opinion, that the ears, nose, throat, and accessory organs of all participating subjects examined by me were not adversely affected in the six months period by smoking the cigarettes provided.' Remember this report, and buy Chesterfields. Regular, or King Size. Premium quality Chesterfields. Much milder!"
I'm sure for plausible deniability they paid someone to produce that report. Science has been subverted by power, so that it is used to reinforce belief systems instead of producing new facts about the universe. But it's been going on since science existed at all.
Slashdot Mirror
And why would a huge corporate company make noise about criminal activity done by one of their possible advertisers, or someone with connections in Washington? They wait until the feds start busting them up. That way, you know they don't have any leverage inside the beltway, and there's nothing you can do to save them anyway.
When the feds are bought and paid for, and the media is bought and paid for, mainstream media becomes an outlet for AP stories that don't offend anyone.
Kennedy wasn't a great president. His administration supported MLK only when it was forced to by public opinion. He continued the idiotic tradition of using the CIA to subvert foreign government, though he may have changed his mind on that after the Bay of Pigs. And thankfully, he was intelligent enough to empathize with the Russian position on missile placement. If Reagan or Bush had been in the White House at that point, their idiotic cowboy attitude could very well have destroyed the planet.
Either way, his foreign policy is not that different from the PNAC cabal. When it suits the US for political or financial gain, send in the troops, but back in those days it barely required a pretext. But when it came down to it, he left every option on the table, including the most effective one: diplomacy.
I guess you could say that the embargo started out as a Democratic conspiracy, and when Republicans started following the same foreign policy for their own reasons, it continued. America could learn quite a few things from Cuba, not only in regards to their health care system, but also in the ways that they survived peak oil after the collapse of the Soviet Union - the first industrial society to do so, as far as I know.
As recent polls show, a majority of Americans hate Fidel even though they believe Cuba will remain the same without him, the result of decades of character assassination trying to undermine his government. They also favor restoration of diplomatic relations, which means very little to the politicians still in charge. Cuba represents independence from American influence to the whole of Latin America, and it's only 90 miles from Key West. Punishing their society for refusing to let our corporations into their market is far more important than anything else, especially the freedom and prosperity of the average Cuban citizen.
Someone whose existence centers around materialism obviously doesn't work in a communal setting. Some people don't mind sharing books, music, and even televisions with people in their community. They may even see it as sign of a healthy society.
Oddly enough you disprove your own sentiment by stating that everyone has to share the finite radio spectrum, which is true. Just remember that everything is finite as far as humans are concerned. The main difference between the population voting for who gets the spectrum, and the FCC declaring where it will be allocated, is that there's a chance the people with all of the capital won't get what they want out of a democratic vote. Therefore it isn't allowed.
How exactly are you connecting FISA and Constantinople?
Furthermore, to reduce your argument to a meaningful state, you seem to believe that the rule of law is inadequate for the US Government. If that's the case, what options are left besides dictatorship?
The real problem you seem to have is that, for the first time in history, the people we trample on for resources and profit are actually fighting back. Here's an idea: remove our military forces from the middle east and see if the situation improves. However, in the language of conquistadors and colonialists, this would represent defeat.
Then I hand them an after action report from the CIA released under the FOIA concerning the overthrow of the government of Iran, known as TPAJAX. I quote, with some pointers and emphasis:
"In July support was sought from the PW [Psychological Warfare] Staff. Both the branch [of the CIA] and higher levels were anxious to have certain items, including the texts of news articles, commentaries and editorials, appear in papers in this country... This support was not forthcoming. It appeared to the branch as if the staff lacked contacts capable of placing material so the American publisher was unwitting as to it's source, as well as being able to see that no changes in theme or emphasis were made. In contrast to this relatively ineffective venture, the Iran desk of the State Department was able to place a CIA study in Newsweek, using the normal channel of desk officer to journalist... it does appear that some improvement of capabilities might be desirable. Either those contacts used to secure the unwitting publication of material should be expanded and improved, or else there should be provision made for passing material directly to cleared editors and owners of press media."
This operation was carried out, according to the report, with 89 persons aware of it, which was "excessive."
So, yes, there is no doubt that a small number of CIA agents illegally ousted a democratic government, using the media as part of their PsyOps. To think that such operations are not part of the government's current arsenal is completely naive.
Check it out for yourself.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-intro.pdf
I can ask the question: "what is natural selection?" and get a reasonably precise answer.
I can ask the question: "what is God?" and spend years getting no answer.
Natural selection is something that can be subjected to the scientific method. God cannot be subjected to the scientific method. So even if you are right and God is responsible, God is still not science. You can teach ID in a philosophy class, and say it's an alternative theory to science. That's fine. Just keep it out of science textbooks, because God is not and never will be science.
The real reason you cannot teach intelligent design in school is because there is no difference in the following answers to the question, "how did life come to be?"
1) God did it.
2) We don't know.
So, teaching intelligent design doesn't get you anywhere. If you'd like to live in a place where the government and religious leaders decide school curriculum together, I hear that Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are lovely this time of year.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/doe_study_offpe.html
Someone, somewhere, will claim that this does not help solve the gasoline problem. Please read the above link, which states that current off-peak electricity could power nearly 200 million PHEVs, according to the DOE. Adding green energy sources will greatly reduce pollution in urban areas when combined with ultra low or zero emission transit.
We'd still have somewhat of an oil problem, but commuting can be covered by existing electric infrastructure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx92mitp9Os
Of course if you would get your head out of your ass and look around every once in a while, you'd realize that humans are very good at problem solving. A 90 mile range car, plugged in at night when many businesses are closed, would cover the needs of much of the population. Taxi drivers can use technology already in use in one of the poorest countries in the world, and with some sensible urban planning most of us can walk around instead of wasting energy driving. Remember, the same caloric content of a gallon of gas could get you a few thousand miles if you use your legs.
The reason it's not being done is because gasoline cars make a lot of money, because they're extremely inefficient and expensive to maintain. And because the corporate non-hippies bitch and moan about mass transportation subsidies, despite the fact that it's more expensive to maintain roads and fight wars in the middle east, we end up with an extremely inefficient infrastructure that does not improve the quality of life.
Or the "to keep up appearances, the American government will be forced to give Iraqis some sort of democracy" Just like all the other countries the US invaded and won?
Are you naive enough to believe otherwise? Let's assume you're right, and Iraq has a flourishing democracy, and total control over their sovereign lands. Do you honestly believe they could sell Iran 550 metric tons of uranium without any consequence from our government? That's about as likely as them successfully removing our permanent military installations being built all over their country.
I'm amused that you don't even bring up Canada's part this. Maybe they truly are America's hat.
As long as the recipient didn't threaten US interests, it didn't matter where it went. Keep in mind who has military control over Iraq. Unsurprisingly, it isn't Iraqis.
But in case you don't believe me, In December 2006 and March 2007, the international community passed resolutions 1737 and 1747 respectively after Iran failed to comply with UN demands to halt the enrichment of uranium or to agree to full IAEA oversight of its nuclear program.
The hypocrisy of American foreign policy is well illustrated at the UN, where it has vetoed any resolution perceived as threatening itself or Israel. Take a look at the record yourself - it's very revealing. Compare the amount of resolutions against Iran versus those against Israel or other US allies, and the respective noise made about either side.
Unlike the United States government, I believe in the rule of law, and since the US government is failing spectacularly at meeting conditions of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, why would anyone else follow it? Iran has publicly declared they want to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and they claim they haven't been forthcoming to the IAEA because of their fear of western interference. I'm not saying I buy their claim, but the US has gone out of it's way to prevent Iran from accepting European security in exchange for taking delivery of nuclear material instead of manufacturing their own.
Iran knows the value of having a nuclear weapon. It's the difference between ending up like Iraq and ending up like North Korea. It's the illegal wars of aggression waged by the United States that make nuclear weapons so attractive.
Saying 100 is equal to 7 doesn't make 100 equal to 7.
Congratulations. You're the new poster child for most ironic non-sequitur.
Pretending that Bush = Saddam doesn't make it so.
Who is pretending? For their own cynical reasons, Bush and Saddam kill people to maintain power and (successfully or not) to get access to more resources for their state.
And? Every time some tool with this argument pipes up, I always think "so fucking what?" Despite what you people think, making a weapon available doesn't require its use. Saddam is responsible for USING the weapons, if he hadn't, they'd be sitting in a fucking ammo dump somewhere. People like you seem to think providing a sovereign state with weapons is equivalent to using them ourselves.
So, under your definition, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. After all, if Saddam had any nerve gas, and gave some to a terrorist nutjob, it's not his fault if they use the device in Grand Central Station. Proving weapons to people with ill intent is morally reprehensible, but I'm sure you'll continue to find a way to rationalize it to protect your plastic patriotism.
But as I've already shown you, 100 does not equal 7.
I'm just repeating this to embarrass you a second time.
THAT is the part that matters, please explain why you think it makes one difference where they came from?
Because not only did he purchase them from us, he used them while we continued to support him with money and weapons. So he wasn't hung for his crimes until it became useful to the interests of the United States. We could have easily cut off material support in the early eighties and allowed the Kurds to successfully defend themselves to stop the atrocities, but we didn't, for one reason: he was doing a great job of killing Iranians, and we didn't care what happened to Iraqis, whether Kurds, anti-Baathists, or the repressed Shia majority.
Yes very. But I'm smart enough to know the difference between someone who sells a knife and someone who uses it to skin a child alive. You don't appear to be that smart.
A more correct analogy would be giving a known sociopath automatic weapons and a room full of people, and telling him you wouldn't turn him in if he slaughtered them all.
And if you want to really know the truth, and know what your government does in order to keep it from you, you may remember the crying Kuwaiti girl on television, recounting the story of babies being taken out of incubators and left on the floor to die.
The girl was the daughter of a Kuwaiti diplomat, and she was lying.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/27/iraq.davidhirst
It's old news, actually. Get back to your MTV before you accidentally learn something.
In order to keep up appearances, the American government will be forced to give Iraqis some sort of democracy, and they (as a Shia majority) will absolutely elect someone friendly to their neighbor Iran. This was probably pre-emptive move to get the uranium out the grip of Tehran.
As we all know, countries cannot be left to conduct business on their own terms, because it could possibly be harmful to the only interests that matter: ours.
He doesn't feed people feet first into plastic shredders.
Instead, he authorizes war and they're blown up, crushed, finished off by treatable diseases, or flee their homes to live in squalor in refugee camps. He only presided the capture of 80,000 suspected terrorists, and only 150 have officially died in custody.
He doesn't use chemical weapons against citizens of his country.
The same members of his current administration authorized the sale of those weapons knowing full well what they'd be used for.
He doesn't have women raped and children tortured in front of their parents.
The lawyer (John Yoo) in charge of formally defining torture said that crushing a child's testicles or raping an infant shouldn't be illegal when trying to extract information from terrorists. They haven't, to public knowledge, done that yet, but they think they should be able to.
He's going to be out of office via the normal process come next January.
Hopefully he won't start a war with Iran before he's finally removed from power, whether directly or through our client state, Israel.
That list goes on and on as well, but to compare him to Saddam is disingenuous at best.
No. Our government supported Saddam Hussein, with money and weapons, during the worst of his atrocities when his father was vice president. The same group of people oversaw the war in the gulf, and returned for round three to complete the destruction of Iraqi society in order to establish control over the resources of that area.
When virtually the same administration supports a tyrant and then accuses him of being a tyrant as an excuse to decimate an entire country, there's no reason not to make the comparison. Were it not for American support of Saddam in the 80s, the Shah from 1953 to 1979, and our continuing support of Saudi Arabia, there may have been freedom in the middle east long ago.
Saddam simply did our dirty work for us, namely, suppressing the Shia minority and keeping Iran in check and Saudi Arabia less worried about an uprising in their own state. Now we're employing the same tactics in Baghdad for the surge, where one hundred thousand mercenaries, including Sunnis no longer allied with al Qaeda, have been given free reign to "establish order."
The hippies are the only reason your river doesn't look like the Yangtze. They're also the ones that were warning people of urban sprawl, inefficient cars and trucks, and pushing for mass transit.
They care about preserving resources, also known as conserving. I know the new conservative movement is totally ignorant of what that means, but it would be prudent to start learning.
Perhaps if we weren't spending 3 billion a week in Iraq, and driving large vehicles huge distances to grossly inefficient oversized houses, we'd be able to afford a heating oil subsidy until alternatives are available.
Yes. Please, give all of the little yuppie children with no jobs the opportunity to tag physical objects. What could possibly be more horrifying than MySpace? Importing it into the real world.
Of course, I could then color code the map to search for OMG PONIES strings, and have a better chance avoiding encounters with the unfortunate benefactors of the death of Darwinism. Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all.
One thing that I know for sure: Abercrombie and Fitch? Ground zero for Apocalypse Dumb.
I mean, if Frank Gehry doesn't know how to weld or install a toilet, fuck his buildings, man. Architecture degree my ass.
I started a mail delivery system that relied on a complicated hierarchy of mostly management, lawyers, and other high level executives, leaving only 10% of the money that the business earned actually going to pay people who delivered the mail.
I'm shocked and disgusted that this new "e-mail" system gives my service away for free, and I'm going to use all of my bloated hierarchy's power to get a mail tax levied on all devices with a MAC address produced from here until Kingdom come!
Uh, Sally, we also need to post a memo to the Zionists to slow down a bit. No, he's on our rolodex. Cheney... right... and the rest of the APAIC. Oh, it's Obama now? What's the difference?
A bit tongue in cheek, but really... the RIAA is bloated, inefficient, and that's why they're suffering. Helping them with their distribution problem is no different from a government fuel subsidy for Walmart. If the market says the way you distribute media has no value, guess what! You don't get paid.
The RIAA doesn't produce anything of value. They're an organization that used to be necessary for distribution and promotion, who are no longer useful to anyone but acts with funding already like Hannah Montana. They are the Pony Express, and it's time for them to die.
Though we can get a good deal on XServes, I went with a Mac Pro just because of the hard drive lock in. 80GB for $200? Or 1TB for $450? It's just ridiculous.
Just as long as you can prove that you don't benefit from the infrastructure and common defense. How much you do pay is another matter.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1993
How many economic disasters must occur due to speculative greed before the lesson is learned?
Here's an idea: you're a member of an oil cartel. Project that due to "demand" that oil will rise to $170 a barrel. Now watch your reserves gain 20% in value just because you said so.
This won't receive media coverage. The ecosystem of for-profit media, for-profit corporations, and for-profit government officials have no interest in their constituents.
They don't need their constituents.
The media will give you only two false options that have zero real policy differences, the gerrymandered lines ensure the "proper" parties are elected. They will avoid offending any of their advertisers by reporting things as unimportant as blatant vote-buying to purchase immunity. Instead we'll get to hear about things that are of no importance: sports, celebrity gossip, and political bickering that passes off as dialogue.
But hey, new iPhone next month! Who's already waiting in line? The best Germans will have theirs first...
Start spending money on domestic security instead of imperialism. Our military budget is nearing 700 billion per year. Even if that was only cut in half, and only ten percent of that was used on traditional police departments, you could open up ten police forces the size of the NYPD.
Or you could even do something crazy like invest in rehabilitation for non-violent criminals, and save our country 40k per year per head for those we're able to return back to society. Halfway houses are a lot cheaper than jail cells, and if they continue to commit crime, you're no worse than when you started.
That's what the populace would prefer. But here in the USA, our opinion doesn't count.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyhvHB62ph8&NR=1
"After a thorough examination of every member of the group, the medical specialist stated, 'It is my opinion, that the ears, nose, throat, and accessory organs of all participating subjects examined by me were not adversely affected in the six months period by smoking the cigarettes provided.' Remember this report, and buy Chesterfields. Regular, or King Size. Premium quality Chesterfields. Much milder!"
I'm sure for plausible deniability they paid someone to produce that report. Science has been subverted by power, so that it is used to reinforce belief systems instead of producing new facts about the universe. But it's been going on since science existed at all.
Nothing new under the sun, right?
"We don't pay attention to users." -Gates