And did you read your citation? You might be missing some history from just that. Your "democratically elected" Prime Minister was ruling by decree. Also, notice who he appoints as Speaker of the House - from a party he then proceeds to antagonize, and undermine.
. ..Mosaddegh convinced parliament to grant him emergency powers for six months "to decree any law he felt necessary for obtaining not only financial solvency, but also electoral, judicial, and educational reforms".[37] Mosaddegh appointed Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani as house speaker. Kashani's Islamic scholars, as well as the Tudeh Party, proved to be two of Mosaddegh's key political allies, although relations with both were often strained.
With his emergency powers, Mosaddegh tried to strengthen the democratic political institutions by limiting the monarchy's unconstitutional powers,[38] cutting Shah's personal budget, forbidding him to communicate directly with foreign diplomats, transferring royal lands back to the state and expelling his politically active sister Ashraf Pahlavi.[36]
In January 1953 Mosaddegh successfully pressed Parliament to extend "emergency powers for another 12 months". With these powers, he decreed a land reform law that established village councils and increased the peasants' share of production.[37] This weakened the landed aristocracy, abolishing Iran's centuries-old feudal agriculture sector, replacing it with a system of collective farming and government land ownership. Mosaddegh saw these reforms as a means of checking the power of the Tudeh Party, which had been agitating for general land reform among the peasants. --- Mohammad Mosaddegh
So, he was ruling by decree, interfering with the affairs of the head of state, using his power to undermine other political parties.... getting a sense of things yet?
To prevent things from going against him, he usurped the Shah's power by dissolving the parliament - an act that only the Shah could legally perform - and extended his powers indefinitely. He tried to wash the stink off that with a fraudulent vote.
Hitler's best as a vote-getter was 99.81% Ja's in 1936; Stalin's peak was 99.73% Da's in 1946. Last week Premier Mohammed Mossadegh, the man in the iron cot, topped them all with 99.93%.
This is the way he did it. Having unconstitutionally dissolved the Majlis, Mossadegh ordered a national referendum to judge his act, crying: "The will of the people is above law."
---
On Saturday 15 August, Colonel Nematollah Nassiri, the commander of the Imperial Guard, delivered to Mosaddegh a firman from the Shah dismissing him. Mosaddegh, . . . rejected the firman as a forgery and had Nassiri arrested.[52] --- 1953 Iranian coup d'etat
After the unconstitutional dismissal of parliament and the fraudulent vote, the Shah signed a decree dismissing Mossadegh as Prime Minister, as was his power and right as monarch. The officer sent to remove Mossadegh was arrested by Mossadegh's men.
A Prime Minister that rules by degree, unconstitutionally dissolves parliament, ignores the constitution, and refuses dismissal from lawful authority is no longer a simple "democratically elected" Prime Minister, but a tyrant. Usurping the power of the Shah and refusing dismissal was overthrowing the head of state - coup d'etat.
The Shah fled the country for his safety until Mossadegh the tyrant could be overthrown.
The data is there, you just have to know where to look. Interesting the way the information is partitioned in Wikipedia, almost as if it was designed to obscure instead of enlighten.
I was complaining about the US's war crimes, or don't they count as crimes if your own country does it?
They don't count as war crimes if they are ordinary acts of war falsely labeled war crimes, as many are wont to do.
I'm curious - do the actual war crimes or crimes against humanity of a Saddam or a Assad trouble you at all? Or is it just the actions of the United States?
Was it a crime against peace for the United States led coalition to remove Saddam's occupation army from Kuwait?
Wahhabism is problematic, to say the least, especially when coupled with the immense wealth and backing of the Saudis. However, it isn't the all-encompassing explanation of the difficulties regarding Islam in the world.
Very simple to settle. Just answer the question - Was the Shah in power at any time prior to Operation Ajax? The answer is yes. Now, how can you put someone in power if they are already in power? You can't. Why was the Shah, the legitimate head of state, out? A coup against him. Returning the Shah to power after the coup against him makes it a counter-coup. The bull is in what you believe.
Regarding Operation Ajax, I suggest you do the same. Operation Ajax was a counter-coup. If you actually know the history you know that the United States didn't install the Shaw of Iran in power, but helped return him to it after he had been overthrown in a coup by Iranians looking to ally with the Communists of the Soviet Union. The Shaw was hardly a puppet, and not a dictator but an emperor.
If people who believe the US government believes in democracy are blathering idiots, what does that make you for overlooking Iraq? You do know that Iraq is a parliamentary democracy today, right?
I'm pretty sure that not everything the US government does is aimed at securing energy, given the evidence: blocking Keystone pipeline, anti-fracking, huge increases coming in EPA regulation aimed at shutting down coal plants, shutting down oil rigs and exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, not approving nuclear plants, etc., etc.
Although you state that, "Democracy is a fool's dream and a lie, pablum spoon fed to the idiot masses", I think you've both drank and are selling a bit of snake oil yourself.
When you're in a firefight? So this is something that happen to you regularly?
You do realize that current and former members of the military (from more than one nation), not to mention members of law enforcement, post here with some regularity, don't you? (To say nothing of the spooks.)
Some people actually venture beyond the portal of mom's basement to do amazing things in the world beyond.
And where's the conclusive proof that Osama Bin Laden, or Saddamn was directly or solely responsible for 911. There is allot of what ifs. And while the Taliban is real. The Al-Queda was a construct of American lawyers.
Democracy in the middle east is not considered a "good" by the Feds. They much prefer friendly ruthless dictators. Not for example how we've never invaded Saudia Arabia and never have a bad word to say about them.
Your post is largely nonsense. Democracy is considered good, even in the Middle East, although elements of the local culture and religion can make that problematic. Saudi Arabia has never given the US cause to invade it as it is a friendly government to the United States, one which the US spent considerable treasure and blood to defend. (You may recall that it was Saddam Hussain's conquest of Kuwait and direct threat to Saudi Arabia which resulted in the first big step towards his downfall.)
And yes, the US does ciriticize Saudi Arabia, regularly.
The following significant human rights problems were reported: no right to change the government peacefully; torture and physical abuse; poor prison and detention center conditions; arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention; denial of fair and public trials and lack of due process in the judicial system; political prisoners; restrictions on civil liberties such as freedoms of speech (including the Internet), assembly, association, movement, and severe restrictions on religious freedom; and corruption and lack of government transparency. Violence against women and a lack of equal rights for women, violations of the rights of children, trafficking in persons, and discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, sect, and ethnicity were common. The lack of workers' rights, including the employment sponsorship system, remained a severe problem.
One more thing, since so many people are confused on this point, the fact that 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia points to the problem they have with extremists, not to hostile action by the Saudi government. The 9/11 attacks against the US were no more Saudi government policy than the Fenian raids against Canada were US government policy.
When was the last time N Korea arrested visitors saying they were CIA spies? On the contrary, N Korea is very welcoming to foreigners, including Americans.
Charges as CIA spies? How bourgeois. It is much simpler and a better reflection of North Korean socialist morality to just hold a trial.
Two American television journalists today were convicted of a "grave crime" against North Korea and sentenced to 12 years of hard labor, a move that increased mounting tensions between the U.S. and the reclusive Asian state.
Laura Ling and Euna Lee, reporters for San Francisco-based Current TV, were sentenced by the top Central Court in Pyongyang in a two-day trial that started Friday as U.S. officials demanded the release of the two women.
The state-run Korean Central News Agency reported that the court "sentenced each of them to 12 years of reform through labor" but gave no further details.
Because the pair were tried by the nation's highest court, there can be no appeal.
Of course the North Koreans are not especially shy about grabbing Americans.
The surreality of visiting North Korea begins at customs. Officials in full military dress — and there are a lot of them, judging by this clandestine video shot by a Canadian tourist — announce that anyone carrying a cell phone must surrender it, to be returned on leaving. The experience gets weirder from there, based on the numerous travelogues and reports that have emerged since the country lifted many of its restrictions on American tourists in 2010.
So the US has an insane foreign policy compared to Saddam's Iraq (invaded, fought, or threatened pretty much every country around them), North Korea (hurl missiles and threats against it neighbors), Iran (covert operations against governments of many countries in region, threaten others, including barely veiled genocide against former ally Israel)?
So could you explain why it is that you think the United States wants to invade sane, peace loving North Korea - a genuine light to the world guided by the enlightened Kims? Is it for the nonexistent oil? And how does it plan to invade? The US has about half of a division there - it is outnumbered about 50:1. And since they have been pursuing nuclear weapons since the 1960s, do you think they can see into a future where they will be called part of the "Axis of Evil"? Or do you think it might be that they are pursuing their own goals independent of what the US does - perish the thought! The US has technically been at war with North Korea for nearly 60 years - why invade now?
I would also like to hear your ideas about why the breakdown of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty and a world-wide nuclear arms race among third world nations is a good idea?
I'm not sure you are really qualified to identify what is sane, or even a good idea. You seem to want to empower third world thugs, dictators, and genocidal maniacs againt what you apparently claim as your own country. Why is that? Some sort of pathology?
It strikes me that if you just let this man run the country for the remainder of his term without obstruction...
Alternatively you can obstruct him at every turn and show that you are hypocrites that talk democracy and freedom...
Comprehension of principles of democracy? : Epic fail
Dodgy indeed.
And if you won't, for fuck sake let him run another country. Australia would love to have Obama as the leader. People of his mien come once a generation
Here is a helpful hint: The person being referred to in Jerusalemis not President Obama.
The great thing about drone operators is that you can outsource the job to China or India. So probably not much
Somehow I doubt the US Air Force, or local law enforcement for that matter, will be giving control over drones that are armed or simply used for surveillance to either the Chinese or Indians.
Slashdot: Comment is free - but it shouldn't be thought free.
Rather like the war against the Barbary pirates, another group of Islamists. Not a problem, really.
is the same as a congressional deceleration of war against a sovereign nation?
Legally, yes.
In a genuine time of war exceptions to due process are made.
That isn't true. They are covered by different rules, the law of war versus criminal law. Rather like the rules of football don't apply when playing basketball.
The US is at war. It hasn't lost its way. You are misinformed and confused.
Anwar al Awlaki was not "considered to be a terrorist", he was a terrorist, a high ranking one at that. He was quite open about recruiting Muslims to kill Americas and was tied to multiple attacks and attempted attacks. His son hoped to follow his father's path.
You are quite right to be alarmed about the potential loss of civil liberties in the United States. But let me ask you this - if the lives of the 175 children you speak of are so precious, will you not weep for the tens or hundreds of thousands of people killed by Al Qaeda planting bombs in markets and along roads? Wouldn't it be better for that to stop?
Of course, they don't plan to stop until they take over the Middle East, and then the world, even if it takes a thousand years. What would you do about that? This is about their ambition to establish Islam's rule over the world, not against real or imagined wrongs done to them by the US and the West, other than not already bowing down and becoming Muslims already. They even want to recapture Spain, both Al Qaeda, and Hamas, and no doubt others.
If you are still concerned about due process, let me offer you this. What way do you have to individually arrest, investigate, charge, try by a jury of peers, convict, and sentence these men before shooting them? Legally they are in the same position as al Awlaki.
The country has limits, you simply don't understand them and how they apply.
The Supreme Court of the United States long ago settled the point of law that an authorization for use of military force is legally equivalent to a declaration of war.
I believe that the root cause of the problem is that Canada's defense is too important to the US for them to allow it to stay in Canadian hands.
Then you believe nonsense. Canada is a soverign nation that governs itself and runs its own military.
...whenever I hear that my nation's forces have been deployed alongside Canadian forces I get an uneasy feeling that doesn't go away until the deployment is over.
If that is true, then you may want to see a doctor or other mental health professional as you may be suffering from an anxiety disorder, or perhaps some other form of mental illness. Although your problem may not be curable, your symptoms may be treatable to allow you to go on with life in a world with Canadians (and the Canadian military) in it.
We're only 'underfunded' and 'unsupported' in the viewpoint of a country that needs a huge army to bully every one with.
Don't worry, the Soviet Army is gone now. Thankfully NATO was able to outlast the whole rotten system of militant, milatarized, oppressive Soviet Communism.
And what a nasty giant they were back in the day too.
Soviet ground forces are composed of more than two hundred divisions, all mechanized, and organized under army, front and high commands in at least five theaters of military operations. They possess more than 53,000 main battle tanks, 48,000 tubes of artillery, mortars and multiple-rocket launchers, 4,600 surface-to-air missiles and 4,500 helicopters.
The air forces include more than 4,900 tactical aircraft. Air defense forces have an additional 1,760 interceptor aircraft, 9,000 surface-to-air missile launchers, and 10,000 warning systems including satellites, radars and air surveillance systems. Under the terms of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the worldâ(TM)s only ABM system has been deployed around Moscow.
The Soviet navy has 360 attack and cruise missile submarines, 274 principal surface combatants, and its own air arm of 390 bombers and 195 fighter aircraft.
After the Soviet Union fell, the US was able to cut its defense spending, which had been falling over time anyway. Even with the cuts, the US was subsidizing Western Europe's defense.
Or were you thinking of someone else? If so, could you be more specific? It is a little hard to reconcile international relations with playground rhetoric. It is made even more difficult by the tendency of some people to forget who their friends are.
I'm afraid you've got some bad data. Allow me to refer you to this document from the IAEA which lists a number of activities connected with the design, fabrication, and testing of nuclear weapons, and developing nuclear materials. That 24 hour IAEA supervision you refer to isn't consistent with what is in the document - they are concerned about the growing number of hidden Iranian nuclear facilities. I suggest you read the Annex, from which I've extracted some relevant information. Sections C4 and forward are especially interesting. Attachment 2: Analysis of Payload, is a bit hard to explain if you want to maintain the fiction of Iran's peaceful intentions.
The short of it is that the Iranians are engaged in activities consistent with designing and testing the components for a nuclear warhead to fit on one of their existing missiles, and building secret uranium processing facilities to provide the nuclear material for the warheads. There isn't publicly available evidence to show that they have started manufacturing any real warheads, or that they as yet have enough nuclear material. They seem to be limiting themselves to putting the infrastructure in place. . . . for now.
ANNEX - Possible Military Dimensions to Iran’s Nuclear Programme
A. Historical Overview
Between 2003 and 2004, the Agency confirmed a number of significant failures on the part of Iran to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, the processing and use of undeclared nuclear material and the failure to declare facilities where the nuclear material had been received, stored and processed.2 Specifically, it was discovered that, as early as the late 1970s and early 1980s, and continuing into the 1990s and 2000s, Iran had used undeclared nuclear material for testing and experimentation in several uranium conversion, enrichment, fabrication and irradiation activities, including the separation of plutonium, at undeclared locations and facilities.3 . . .
. . . The Agency continued to seek clarification of issues with respect to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, particularly in light of Iran’s admissions concerning its contacts with the clandestine nuclear supply network, information provided by participants in that network and information which had been provided to the Agency by a Member State. This last information, collectively referred to as the “alleged studies documentation”, which was made known to the Agency in 2005, indicated that Iran had been engaged in activities involving studies on a so-called green salt project, high explosives testing and the re-engineering of a missile re-entry vehicle to accommodate a new payload.10 All of this information, taken together, gave rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. . . .
. . . Between 2007 and 2010, Iran continued to conceal nuclear activities, by not informing the Agency in a timely manner of the decision to construct or to authorize construction of a new nuclear power plant at Darkhovin16 and a third enrichment facility near Qom (the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant).17,18 The Agency is still awaiting substantive responses from Iran to Agency requests for further information about its announcements, in 2009 and 2010 respectively, that it had decided to construct ten additional enrichment facilities (the locations for five of which had already been identified)19 and that it possessed laser enrichment technology.20 . . .
C. Nuclear Explosive Development Indicators C.1. Programme management structure
"They tried to frame Iran as having an active nuclear weapons program. Then they try to frame WikiLeaks as the reason why that's not known to the public now."
Both of Assange's assertions are false as shown above. Iran isn't being framed, they do have an actual active nuclear weapons program, including design and testing of implosion based warhead components. What they have yet to do, so far as is publicly known, is to actually produce a real warhead. Anyone reading the papers, as shown in the parent post, or other sources, knows this. If fact, Iran may be making a move to surge their efforts. This isn't good.
Assnage's comments are just another example of Assange's self-glorification. Nobody knows about Iran because Wikileaks hasn't release anything? Please.
That isn't much different from the claim he makes in regard to planning the Arab Spring. I doubt that is even 5% true.
. . . The first time I went to Egypt, also in 2005, I met the same kinds of people I met in Lebanon. Cosmopolitan, liberal-minded individuals who were like Arab versions of me. Egypt had nothing like Hezbollah controlling large swaths of the country and warmongering against the neighbors. No foreign army smothered the country. Instead it had a police state. The narrative there at first seemed to be: democrats against the regime. That’s what it looked like. But my experience in Lebanon prompted me to ask a question of my liberal Egyptian friends that seems not to have occurred to some of the other journalists and Western internationalists who have been there. I asked these Egyptian liberals, “how many Egyptians agree with you about politics?” The answer stopped me cold: five percent at the most. . . . --- The International Elite Bubble , by Michael J. Totten
When it comes to sophisticated products or technologies, marketing announcements, journal articles, even refereed papers are fine things. However, if you are actually trying to build the thing yourself, you need an actual recipe to do it, and sometimes the real secret, the art of it, is in the recipe, the actual implementation. Think of something so simple as rubber, which had been known for hundreds of years or more, but had defeated previous attempts to improve its utility. That is until Charles Goodyear invented the vulcanization process.
In terms of software, even when an algorithm is published, that is only part of the story. The implementation is a key element. Is it implemented correctly? Is the software written in a robust, reliable manner? Is it easy to use correctly to perform its key function? There have been many encryption utilities written, not all of them useful, not all of them correct, not all of them secure. Even if you get an encryption algorithm correct, your operational practices may render it vulnerable.
More than a few countries do themselves a disservice in terms of military infrastructure by trying to use sophisticated equipment without the necessary infrastructure, training, and spare parts needed to use it effectively. They are fooling themselves. Just because you have it doesn't mean that you can use it effectively.
Stealing IP doesn't always work out for you either. You may not have the necessary technology to build the item. You may steal "doctored" plans for a real item that is designed to fail in subtle ways, as did the Soviets.
Sometimes a shoddy copy is good enough for what you need. Other times it is useless.
Sometimes, even if you had the magic, you lose it, and may no longer be able to summon a dragon when needed.
Of course, in other cases, reverse engineering is relatively straight forward, and a new, dangerous competitor can come out of nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
And did you read your citation? You might be missing some history from just that. Your "democratically elected" Prime Minister was ruling by decree. Also, notice who he appoints as Speaker of the House - from a party he then proceeds to antagonize, and undermine.
. . .Mosaddegh convinced parliament to grant him emergency powers for six months "to decree any law he felt necessary for obtaining not only financial solvency, but also electoral, judicial, and educational reforms".[37] Mosaddegh appointed Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani as house speaker. Kashani's Islamic scholars, as well as the Tudeh Party, proved to be two of Mosaddegh's key political allies, although relations with both were often strained.
With his emergency powers, Mosaddegh tried to strengthen the democratic political institutions by limiting the monarchy's unconstitutional powers,[38] cutting Shah's personal budget, forbidding him to communicate directly with foreign diplomats, transferring royal lands back to the state and expelling his politically active sister Ashraf Pahlavi.[36]
In January 1953 Mosaddegh successfully pressed Parliament to extend "emergency powers for another 12 months". With these powers, he decreed a land reform law that established village councils and increased the peasants' share of production.[37] This weakened the landed aristocracy, abolishing Iran's centuries-old feudal agriculture sector, replacing it with a system of collective farming and government land ownership. Mosaddegh saw these reforms as a means of checking the power of the Tudeh Party, which had been agitating for general land reform among the peasants. --- Mohammad Mosaddegh
So, he was ruling by decree, interfering with the affairs of the head of state, using his power to undermine other political parties.... getting a sense of things yet?
To prevent things from going against him, he usurped the Shah's power by dissolving the parliament - an act that only the Shah could legally perform - and extended his powers indefinitely. He tried to wash the stink off that with a fraudulent vote.
IRAN: 99.93% Pure - Monday, Aug. 17, 1953
Hitler's best as a vote-getter was 99.81% Ja's in 1936; Stalin's peak was 99.73% Da's in 1946. Last week Premier Mohammed Mossadegh, the man in the iron cot, topped them all with 99.93%.
This is the way he did it. Having unconstitutionally dissolved the Majlis, Mossadegh ordered a national referendum to judge his act, crying: "The will of the people is above law."
---
On Saturday 15 August, Colonel Nematollah Nassiri, the commander of the Imperial Guard, delivered to Mosaddegh a firman from the Shah dismissing him. Mosaddegh, . . . rejected the firman as a forgery and had Nassiri arrested.[52] --- 1953 Iranian coup d'etat
After the unconstitutional dismissal of parliament and the fraudulent vote, the Shah signed a decree dismissing Mossadegh as Prime Minister, as was his power and right as monarch. The officer sent to remove Mossadegh was arrested by Mossadegh's men.
A Prime Minister that rules by degree, unconstitutionally dissolves parliament, ignores the constitution, and refuses dismissal from lawful authority is no longer a simple "democratically elected" Prime Minister, but a tyrant. Usurping the power of the Shah and refusing dismissal was overthrowing the head of state - coup d'etat.
The Shah fled the country for his safety until Mossadegh the tyrant could be overthrown.
The data is there, you just have to know where to look. Interesting the way the information is partitioned in Wikipedia, almost as if it was designed to obscure instead of enlighten.
Mohammad Mos
I was complaining about the US's war crimes, or don't they count as crimes if your own country does it?
They don't count as war crimes if they are ordinary acts of war falsely labeled war crimes, as many are wont to do.
I'm curious - do the actual war crimes or crimes against humanity of a Saddam or a Assad trouble you at all? Or is it just the actions of the United States?
Was it a crime against peace for the United States led coalition to remove Saddam's occupation army from Kuwait?
Wahhabism is problematic, to say the least, especially when coupled with the immense wealth and backing of the Saudis. However, it isn't the all-encompassing explanation of the difficulties regarding Islam in the world.
A Wahhabism Problem - Misleading historical negationism.
WAHHABISM: STATE-SPONSORED EXTREMISM WORLDWIDE
Very simple to settle. Just answer the question - Was the Shah in power at any time prior to Operation Ajax? The answer is yes. Now, how can you put someone in power if they are already in power? You can't. Why was the Shah, the legitimate head of state, out? A coup against him. Returning the Shah to power after the coup against him makes it a counter-coup. The bull is in what you believe.
Regarding Operation Ajax, I suggest you do the same. Operation Ajax was a counter-coup. If you actually know the history you know that the United States didn't install the Shaw of Iran in power, but helped return him to it after he had been overthrown in a coup by Iranians looking to ally with the Communists of the Soviet Union. The Shaw was hardly a puppet, and not a dictator but an emperor.
If people who believe the US government believes in democracy are blathering idiots, what does that make you for overlooking Iraq? You do know that Iraq is a parliamentary democracy today, right?
I'm pretty sure that not everything the US government does is aimed at securing energy, given the evidence: blocking Keystone pipeline, anti-fracking, huge increases coming in EPA regulation aimed at shutting down coal plants, shutting down oil rigs and exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, not approving nuclear plants, etc., etc.
Although you state that, "Democracy is a fool's dream and a lie, pablum spoon fed to the idiot masses", I think you've both drank and are selling a bit of snake oil yourself.
Cheers
When you're in a firefight? So this is something that happen to you regularly?
You do realize that current and former members of the military (from more than one nation), not to mention members of law enforcement, post here with some regularity, don't you? (To say nothing of the spooks.)
Some people actually venture beyond the portal of mom's basement to do amazing things in the world beyond.
And where's the conclusive proof that Osama Bin Laden, or Saddamn was directly or solely responsible for 911. There is allot of what ifs. And while the Taliban is real. The Al-Queda was a construct of American lawyers.
Osama Bin Laden Admits Planning 9/11 in Meeting with Egyptian Terrorist
Bin Laden was pretty clear about why he did it.
The Al-Queda was a construct of American lawyers.
You don't know what you are talking about.
A history of terror: Al-Qaeda 1988-2008
Democracy in the middle east is not considered a "good" by the Feds. They much prefer friendly ruthless dictators. Not for example how we've never invaded Saudia Arabia and never have a bad word to say about them.
Your post is largely nonsense. Democracy is considered good, even in the Middle East, although elements of the local culture and religion can make that problematic. Saudi Arabia has never given the US cause to invade it as it is a friendly government to the United States, one which the US spent considerable treasure and blood to defend. (You may recall that it was Saddam Hussain's conquest of Kuwait and direct threat to Saudi Arabia which resulted in the first big step towards his downfall.)
And yes, the US does ciriticize Saudi Arabia, regularly.
2010 Human Rights Report: Saudi Arabia
The following significant human rights problems were reported: no right to change the government peacefully; torture and physical abuse; poor prison and detention center conditions; arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention; denial of fair and public trials and lack of due process in the judicial system; political prisoners; restrictions on civil liberties such as freedoms of speech (including the Internet), assembly, association, movement, and severe restrictions on religious freedom; and corruption and lack of government transparency. Violence against women and a lack of equal rights for women, violations of the rights of children, trafficking in persons, and discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, sect, and ethnicity were common. The lack of workers' rights, including the employment sponsorship system, remained a severe problem.
One more thing, since so many people are confused on this point, the fact that 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia points to the problem they have with extremists, not to hostile action by the Saudi government. The 9/11 attacks against the US were no more Saudi government policy than the Fenian raids against Canada were US government policy.
When was the last time N Korea arrested visitors saying they were CIA spies? On the contrary, N Korea is very welcoming to foreigners, including Americans.
Charges as CIA spies? How bourgeois. It is much simpler and a better reflection of North Korean socialist morality to just hold a trial.
2 U.S. reporters get 12 years in N. Korea - June 08, 2009
Two American television journalists today were convicted of a "grave crime" against North Korea and sentenced to 12 years of hard labor, a move that increased mounting tensions between the U.S. and the reclusive Asian state.
Laura Ling and Euna Lee, reporters for San Francisco-based Current TV, were sentenced by the top Central Court in Pyongyang in a two-day trial that started Friday as U.S. officials demanded the release of the two women.
The state-run Korean Central News Agency reported that the court "sentenced each of them to 12 years of reform through labor" but gave no further details.
Because the pair were tried by the nation's highest court, there can be no appeal.
Of course the North Koreans are not especially shy about grabbing Americans.
North Korea says it has arrested American citizen - Sun December 23, 2012
North Korea arrests American; continues shelling near disputed border - January 28, 2010
North Korea arrests US man - December 29, 2009
And foreigners? The North Korean government loves foreigners. . . in a sort of "collect them and trade them!" kind of way.
Japanese kidnapped by North Koreans return home in tears .she is a Thai national who was kidnapped by North Korean agents. . ."
Kidnapped by North Korea
Armed North Koreans kidnap Chinese sailors
Jenkins Photo Proof Of Kidnapping? - ". .
Did North Korea Just Kidnap Two American Journalists?
Kidnappers Incorporated
Japanese families fear that North Korea is still abducting - North Korea had kidnapped nationals from at least 11 other countries, including France, Italy and the United States.
It seems they want to impress them, not arrest them.
Impress them in a Potemkin village sort of way, yes.
Welcome to Lenin Disney: North Korea’s otherworldly tourism experience
So the US has an insane foreign policy compared to Saddam's Iraq (invaded, fought, or threatened pretty much every country around them), North Korea (hurl missiles and threats against it neighbors), Iran (covert operations against governments of many countries in region, threaten others, including barely veiled genocide against former ally Israel)?
So could you explain why it is that you think the United States wants to invade sane, peace loving North Korea - a genuine light to the world guided by the enlightened Kims? Is it for the nonexistent oil? And how does it plan to invade? The US has about half of a division there - it is outnumbered about 50:1. And since they have been pursuing nuclear weapons since the 1960s, do you think they can see into a future where they will be called part of the "Axis of Evil"? Or do you think it might be that they are pursuing their own goals independent of what the US does - perish the thought! The US has technically been at war with North Korea for nearly 60 years - why invade now?
I would also like to hear your ideas about why the breakdown of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty and a world-wide nuclear arms race among third world nations is a good idea?
I'm not sure you are really qualified to identify what is sane, or even a good idea. You seem to want to empower third world thugs, dictators, and genocidal maniacs againt what you apparently claim as your own country. Why is that? Some sort of pathology?
Nonsense. Climate change is God's wrath for allowing a black (probably Muslim, possibly alien) Democratic President to come to power.
Somehow I doubt that.
It strikes me that if you just let this man run the country for the remainder of his term without obstruction ...
Alternatively you can obstruct him at every turn and show that you are hypocrites that talk democracy and freedom...
Comprehension of principles of democracy? : Epic fail
Dodgy indeed.
And if you won't, for fuck sake let him run another country. Australia would love to have Obama as the leader. People of his mien come once a generation
Here is a helpful hint: The person being referred to in Jerusalem is not President Obama.
So the US is ending their occupation of Afghanistan again? Like they did the last few times they announced a "full withdraw"?
Could you provide some links to these previous announcements about Afghanistan, and when they would occur?
The only thing I find more amazing than official US propaganda is that most people seem to believe it.
Indeed. By the way, where do you get your info from? A "trustworthy" party organ?
Last US troops withdraw from Iraq
The great thing about drone operators is that you can outsource the job to China or India. So probably not much
Somehow I doubt the US Air Force, or local law enforcement for that matter, will be giving control over drones that are armed or simply used for surveillance to either the Chinese or Indians.
Slashdot: Comment is free - but it shouldn't be thought free.
So now a theoretically declared war . .
It is actual, not theoretical.
against a poorly defined group of individuals
Rather like the war against the Barbary pirates, another group of Islamists. Not a problem, really.
is the same as a congressional deceleration of war against a sovereign nation?
Legally, yes.
In a genuine time of war exceptions to due process are made.
That isn't true. They are covered by different rules, the law of war versus criminal law. Rather like the rules of football don't apply when playing basketball.
The US is at war. It hasn't lost its way. You are misinformed and confused.
Anwar al Awlaki was not "considered to be a terrorist", he was a terrorist, a high ranking one at that. He was quite open about recruiting Muslims to kill Americas and was tied to multiple attacks and attempted attacks. His son hoped to follow his father's path.
Anwar al Awlaki's son hoped 'to attain martyrdom as my father attained it'
You are quite right to be alarmed about the potential loss of civil liberties in the United States. But let me ask you this - if the lives of the 175 children you speak of are so precious, will you not weep for the tens or hundreds of thousands of people killed by Al Qaeda planting bombs in markets and along roads? Wouldn't it be better for that to stop?
Of course, they don't plan to stop until they take over the Middle East, and then the world, even if it takes a thousand years. What would you do about that? This is about their ambition to establish Islam's rule over the world, not against real or imagined wrongs done to them by the US and the West, other than not already bowing down and becoming Muslims already. They even want to recapture Spain, both Al Qaeda, and Hamas, and no doubt others.
HAMAS Targets Spain
Alarm in Spain over al-Qaeda call for its "reconquest"
If you are still concerned about due process, let me offer you this. What way do you have to individually arrest, investigate, charge, try by a jury of peers, convict, and sentence these men before shooting them? Legally they are in the same position as al Awlaki.
The country has limits, you simply don't understand them and how they apply.
Remind me again when Congress declared war on Al-Qaeda?
As you wish:
Authorization for Use of Military Force - September 18, 2001 - Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
The Supreme Court of the United States long ago settled the point of law that an authorization for use of military force is legally equivalent to a declaration of war.
I believe that the root cause of the problem is that Canada's defense is too important to the US for them to allow it to stay in Canadian hands.
Then you believe nonsense. Canada is a soverign nation that governs itself and runs its own military.
...whenever I hear that my nation's forces have been deployed alongside Canadian forces I get an uneasy feeling that doesn't go away until the deployment is over.
If that is true, then you may want to see a doctor or other mental health professional as you may be suffering from an anxiety disorder, or perhaps some other form of mental illness. Although your problem may not be curable, your symptoms may be treatable to allow you to go on with life in a world with Canadians (and the Canadian military) in it.
The tragedy of canuckophobia
We're only 'underfunded' and 'unsupported' in the viewpoint of a country that needs a huge army to bully every one with.
Don't worry, the Soviet Army is gone now. Thankfully NATO was able to outlast the whole rotten system of militant, milatarized, oppressive Soviet Communism.
And what a nasty giant they were back in the day too.
Soviet Military Doctrine
Soviet ground forces are composed of more than two hundred divisions, all mechanized, and organized under army, front and high commands in at least five theaters of military operations. They possess more than 53,000 main battle tanks, 48,000 tubes of artillery, mortars and multiple-rocket launchers, 4,600 surface-to-air missiles and 4,500 helicopters.
The air forces include more than 4,900 tactical aircraft. Air defense forces have an additional 1,760 interceptor aircraft, 9,000 surface-to-air missile launchers, and 10,000 warning systems including satellites, radars and air surveillance systems. Under the terms of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the worldâ(TM)s only ABM system has been deployed around Moscow.
The Soviet navy has 360 attack and cruise missile submarines, 274 principal surface combatants, and its own air arm of 390 bombers and 195 fighter aircraft.
After the Soviet Union fell, the US was able to cut its defense spending, which had been falling over time anyway. Even with the cuts, the US was subsidizing Western Europe's defense.
NATO BURDENSHARING AFTER ENLARGEMENT
Or were you thinking of someone else? If so, could you be more specific? It is a little hard to reconcile international relations with playground rhetoric. It is made even more difficult by the tendency of some people to forget who their friends are.
The Big Picture: Salute To The Canadian Army
2 PPCLI on parade, with Brigadier Gault in attendance.
I'm afraid you've got some bad data. Allow me to refer you to this document from the IAEA which lists a number of activities connected with the design, fabrication, and testing of nuclear weapons, and developing nuclear materials. That 24 hour IAEA supervision you refer to isn't consistent with what is in the document - they are concerned about the growing number of hidden Iranian nuclear facilities. I suggest you read the Annex, from which I've extracted some relevant information. Sections C4 and forward are especially interesting. Attachment 2: Analysis of Payload, is a bit hard to explain if you want to maintain the fiction of Iran's peaceful intentions.
The short of it is that the Iranians are engaged in activities consistent with designing and testing the components for a nuclear warhead to fit on one of their existing missiles, and building secret uranium processing facilities to provide the nuclear material for the warheads. There isn't publicly available evidence to show that they have started manufacturing any real warheads, or that they as yet have enough nuclear material. They seem to be limiting themselves to putting the infrastructure in place. . . . for now.
Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran
IAEA Board of Governors
Date: 8 November 2011
ANNEX - Possible Military Dimensions to Iran’s Nuclear Programme
A. Historical Overview
Between 2003 and 2004, the Agency confirmed a number of significant failures on the part of Iran to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, the processing and use of undeclared nuclear material and the failure to declare facilities where the nuclear material had been received, stored and processed.2 Specifically, it was discovered that, as early as the late 1970s and early 1980s, and continuing into the 1990s and 2000s, Iran had used undeclared nuclear material for testing and experimentation in several uranium conversion, enrichment, fabrication and irradiation activities, including the separation of plutonium, at undeclared locations and facilities.3 . . .
. . . The Agency continued to seek clarification of issues with respect to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, particularly in light of Iran’s admissions concerning its contacts with the clandestine nuclear supply network, information provided by participants in that network and information which had been provided to the Agency by a Member State. This last information, collectively referred to as the “alleged studies documentation”, which was made known to the Agency in 2005, indicated that Iran had been engaged in activities involving studies on a so-called green salt project, high explosives testing and the re-engineering of a missile re-entry vehicle to accommodate a new payload.10 All of this information, taken together, gave rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. . . .
. . . Between 2007 and 2010, Iran continued to conceal nuclear activities, by not informing the Agency in a timely manner of the decision to construct or to authorize construction of a new nuclear power plant at Darkhovin16 and a third enrichment facility near Qom (the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant).17,18 The Agency is still awaiting substantive responses from Iran to Agency requests for further information about its announcements, in 2009 and 2010 respectively, that it had decided to construct ten additional enrichment facilities (the locations for five of which had already been identified)19 and that it possessed laser enrichment technology.20 . . .
C. Nuclear Explosive Development Indicators
C.1. Programme management structure
. . . the green sal
That post is offtopic? Hardly.
From the fine story post:
"They tried to frame Iran as having an active nuclear weapons program. Then they try to frame WikiLeaks as the reason why that's not known to the public now."
Both of Assange's assertions are false as shown above. Iran isn't being framed, they do have an actual active nuclear weapons program, including design and testing of implosion based warhead components. What they have yet to do, so far as is publicly known, is to actually produce a real warhead. Anyone reading the papers, as shown in the parent post, or other sources, knows this. If fact, Iran may be making a move to surge their efforts. This isn't good.
Assnage's comments are just another example of Assange's self-glorification. Nobody knows about Iran because Wikileaks hasn't release anything? Please.
That isn't much different from the claim he makes in regard to planning the Arab Spring. I doubt that is even 5% true.
. . . The first time I went to Egypt, also in 2005, I met the same kinds of people I met in Lebanon. Cosmopolitan, liberal-minded individuals who were like Arab versions of me. Egypt had nothing like Hezbollah controlling large swaths of the country and warmongering against the neighbors. No foreign army smothered the country. Instead it had a police state. The narrative there at first seemed to be: democrats against the regime. That’s what it looked like. But my experience in Lebanon prompted me to ask a question of my liberal Egyptian friends that seems not to have occurred to some of the other journalists and Western internationalists who have been there. I asked these Egyptian liberals, “how many Egyptians agree with you about politics?” The answer stopped me cold: five percent at the most. . . . --- The International Elite Bubble , by Michael J. Totten
Shew, that's a relief. I think we can all rest easier now now the Jules has settled this matter for us.
I'll say.
IAEA Releases New Report on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Iran’s Top Atomic Official Says Nation Issued False Nuclear Data to Fool Spies
China Leader Warns Iran Not to Make Nuclear Arms
What happens when those features are disabled?
It turns a mach 2 jet bomber into a compact, contemporary styled, and very fast lounge suite.
And when the government standards, like export restrictions, fall far enough behind the state of the art, hilarity can ensue.
Apple tries to get G4 export ban lifted
Apple PowerMac G4 Commercial - Super Computer
Sci/Tech - Apple launches 'desktop supercomputer'
When it comes to sophisticated products or technologies, marketing announcements, journal articles, even refereed papers are fine things. However, if you are actually trying to build the thing yourself, you need an actual recipe to do it, and sometimes the real secret, the art of it, is in the recipe, the actual implementation. Think of something so simple as rubber, which had been known for hundreds of years or more, but had defeated previous attempts to improve its utility. That is until Charles Goodyear invented the vulcanization process.
In terms of software, even when an algorithm is published, that is only part of the story. The implementation is a key element. Is it implemented correctly? Is the software written in a robust, reliable manner? Is it easy to use correctly to perform its key function? There have been many encryption utilities written, not all of them useful, not all of them correct, not all of them secure. Even if you get an encryption algorithm correct, your operational practices may render it vulnerable.
More than a few countries do themselves a disservice in terms of military infrastructure by trying to use sophisticated equipment without the necessary infrastructure, training, and spare parts needed to use it effectively. They are fooling themselves. Just because you have it doesn't mean that you can use it effectively.
Stealing IP doesn't always work out for you either. You may not have the necessary technology to build the item. You may steal "doctored" plans for a real item that is designed to fail in subtle ways, as did the Soviets.
Sometimes a shoddy copy is good enough for what you need. Other times it is useless.
Sometimes, even if you had the magic, you lose it, and may no longer be able to summon a dragon when needed.
Of course, in other cases, reverse engineering is relatively straight forward, and a new, dangerous competitor can come out of nowhere.