. . . Democrats, now firmly ensconced in power, have a K Street Project all their own. . . .
These days the Democratic leadership is strong-arming K Street to — take a guess! — hire more Democrats. “I think they haven’t come to terms with what happened two Novembers ago,” Sen. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.), told Roll Call. He added that while Democratic politicians will talk to Republican representatives of various industries, the “lack of a common philosophical and policy background makes it hard to communicate and build consensus” (in Roll Call’s words).
No kidding. Funny how that works. For good and ill, the Republican party is the pro-business party and the Democratic party ain’t. Maybe that explains the lack of common philosophical background. After all, I don’t recall Tom DeLay saying that labor unions and the NAACP should hire more Republicans.
“If Democrats want to hold the majority,” a Democratic lobbyist told Roll Call, “they don’t do it by playing Mr. Nice Guy. You don’t hold power if you don’t know how to use that power.” Why, it’s almost like that guy’s a ventriloquist’s dummy for Tom “The Hammer” DeLay.
On Thursday, the Senate Democratic leadership dragooned the heads of 17 major trade associations, according to the Politico. In an act of political intimidation the KSPers never dreamed of attempting, the senators leaned on the business representatives to get with the Democratic program or lose access.
What about all those Democratic promises of turning away from the corrupt practices of Republicans.
The great conservative statesman Edmund Burke offers one possible answer: “Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises; for never intending to go beyond promises, it costs nothing.”
Communist countries tend(ed) to be militantly atheistic and commonly harass, imprison, or otherwise interfere with religious institutions, including seizing or destroying their property.... until they think they need them, as occurred in the Soviet's Great Patriotic War.
The birth rate of native Europeans is so far below replacement rate that they risk serious social problems in the next 30 years.
Gallium Arsenide is an interesting III-V semiconductor material for a number of reasons.
Engineers in the Soviet Union continued to perfect and use vacuum tubes long after they were abandoned in the West.
Well, bad luck, your suspicion turns out to be false. Of course what is interesting about that is that I was simply responding to your statements that were, to use your phrase, "linked to superstitions that have been passed down for millenia."
I don't remember Canada going to war when another of their citizens was captured and tortured by different bunch of savages on trumped-up charges. Why act differently now?
I'm not sure you are keeping your "savages" straight. (By the way - thanks for the link.)
In October 2010 he pleaded guilty to the five charges against him as part of a plea agreement with military commission prosecutors. He was captured on July 27, 2002 by American forces at the age of 15 following a four-hour firefight in the village of Ayub Kheyl, Afghanistan. . . .
Khadr pled guilty to the murder of Christopher Speer. On October 29, 2010, despite the prosecution psychiatrist testifying that he showed no signs of remorse;[31] Khadr apologized to the widow of Speer for the pain he had caused her. . ...
The following day, soldiers including Silver returned to search the premises. Local villagers were believed to have taken away two bodies and provided them an Islamic burial, but refused to disclose their location to the Americans who wished to identify the fighters.
Believing that the wooden boards beneath the last-killed rifleman could have been used to cover an underground chamber, an excavator was used to tear down the walls of the buildings. This demolition uncovered five boxes of rifle ammunition, two rockets, two grenades and three rocket-propelled grenades in the huts. Some of them had accidentally detonated while lying in the smouldering ruins. A plastic bag was discovered in the granary, containing documents, wires and a videocassette. OC-1's report claims the videotape was found in the main house, rather than the granary, and also mentioned detonators modeled as Sega game cartridges.
The video shows Khadr toying with detonating cord as other men including Abu Laith al-Libi assemble explosives in the same house as had just been destroyed, identifiable by its walls, rugs and the environment seen out the windows in the video, and planting landmines while smiling and joking with the cameraman. It has been suggested that these were the same landmines later recovered by American forces on a road between Gardez and Khowst.
So is Christianity unless you delete the fourth primary author entirely. What's your point?
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Mathew 22:34-40
The United States has not denied a single extradition request from the UK under the treaty. While the U.S. does send more extradition requests to the UK than it receives, this difference is largely due to the differences in the size of the respective populations. The panel report notes that the U.S. has a population about five times the size of the UK, but there have been fewer than twice the number of people extradited to the U.S. than to the UK. The number of U.S. requests is not disproportionate.
The standards are the same in practice:
All extradition requests between the U.S. and UK must meet the same evidentiary standard: probable cause. All requests from the U.S. must meet the standard of “reasonable suspicion” required under UK law. However, all requests from the U.S. must also be based on a charging document that meets the “probable cause” standard required under U.S. law. This is the same standard that the U.S. requires of extradition requests from the UK The panel reviewed the evidence and concluded: “There is no practical difference between the information submitted to and from the United States.”
You harken back to the old days that never were. And did you ever stop to think that records of gay marriages in the past were destroyed by the church in order to keep their handhold on the institution?
No doubt they were destroyed at the same time they destroyed all of the records of marriages to space aliens.
How the fuck do you know what went in 5000 years ago?
'Also let none of you devise evil in your heart against another, and do not love perjury; -- Zechariah 8:17 (580+ BCE) "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. -- Leviticus 19:18 (1270+ BCE)
That still seems sound.
In short, you win the award for Biggest Piece Of Shit Of The Day.
So you don't support the idea of civil discourse then?
Afghanistan and the Taliban didn't bomb the Twin Towers, genius.
Congratulations, you managed to pull a hat trick there. Try reading my post again - I didn't write that Afghanistan and the Taliban performed the attack on 9/11. Second, it doesn't matter that they didn't since the Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to operate from Afghan territory and conduct terror operations world wide, not to mention the attack on the United States. They also effectively integrated Al Qaeda into the government. Third, the Twin Towers weren't bombed, they were rammed by aircraft full of jet fuel.
The most they did was not capture and hand over bin Laden to the US, but then again why the fuck should they?
Two reasons - First, Bin Laden was the indicted leader of a band of international terrorists who repeatedly engaged in mass murder. Second, to avoid what actually happened when they didn't had him over as demanded in the ultimatum - invasion and being removed from power.
The US and the West generally were no friends of the Taliban.
The US and the West were generally willing to more or less ignore the Taliban until they let Al Qaeda run amok, engaging in mass murder around the world.
That chip on your shoulder seems to be interfering with thinking clearly.
Genius? I can understand why you might think that, but no, I simply try to be informed.
In the debate about the November 11 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards report, some have falsely implied that Vyacheslav Danilenko did not know anything about nuclear weapons, or that he worked solely on nanodiamonds from the beginning of his research career, even though he worked at Chelyabinsk-70 for almost thirty years.1 The open source record demonstrates that these statements are incorrect and that Danilenko was involved in developing and using inwardly converging high pressure explosions and diagnostic systems to measure their effectiveness vital to the development of Soviet nuclear weapons. As such, the open source record supports that when he assisted Iran in the 1990s, he was an ex-Soviet nuclear weapons expert. Given his background, Danilenko should have had reason to believe that his knowledge and expertise related to high explosive compression in nuclear weapons could be misused by the Iranians, even if he limited himself to advising on strictly non-nuclear weapon applications.
The report is based on more than 1,000 pages of documents generated by the IAEA itself, from Iran and from more than 10 member states of the U.N. agency. "All of this information, taken together, gave rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," the IAEA report said.. . . .
Officials briefed on the report also said the IAEA believes North Korea is the foreign government named in the report as assisting Tehran in conducting computer modeling of nuclear detonations.
They said a former Russian nuclear scientist, Vyacheslav Danilenko, is the official cited in the report as making a string of visits to Tehran from 1996 through 2002 to help Iran develop a high-explosive initiation system, which can be used to trigger a nuclear device. The IAEA said they were told during consultations that this work was for non-nuclear applications
Outright denial of the problem without any proof or reason except some unsupportable personal conviction is particularly vile and selfish.
And here we see why the "Climate Change" nee "Global Warming" movement is so subversive and dangerous. If someone where to say, "I don't belive in Einstein's theory of relativity", he would be told he is wrong, or ignored. If someone were to say, "I don't believe in the theory of continental drift", she would be told she is wrong, or ignored. But to DOUBT or DENY climate change is sacrilege - you are vile, selfish, practically an evil doer fit to be punished. Scientists who see the data differently are in danger of losing their jobs, and funding. It has happened before. What other science acts that way? What other theory demands such fealty?
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
So, 97% of the world's scientists are religious zealots?
No, but not all of them feel free to speak their actual opinion in the face of "consensus" that can cost you a job. And pretty much all of them need funding which tends to be funneled towards climate change research that already assumes anthropogenic global warming exists.
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.. . . .
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
You've got several bits of this wrong. The US didn't help the Taliban during the Soviet invasion because they didn't exist - they formed after the war in the chaos of the Afghan civil war. Helping the Afghan resistance was probably fine, but it might have helped avoid some problems to put some effort into helping the Afghans rebuild their society after the Soviets left - assuming they would accept the help. (Not a given.)
Don't kid yourself - Islamic extremism and terrorism was growing world-wide the entire time.
Yes, the ignorant, inattentive, or doctrinaire leftists are often left with that impression - but that's all it is - an impression. It simply isn't true.
One of the things you might take as a clue is the simple fact that the attacks of September 11, 2001 left about 3,000 dead bodies in the US due to direct enemy attack. Even a European power would be roused to defend itself under similar circumstances. Well, actually they did - the self-defense provision of the NATO treaty was invoked and the US is fighting with its NATO allies (not to mention participation by the ANZACS) in Afghanistan. Hope that helps.
Do you have any evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons ? Because as far as I know, all they are doing is producing fuel for nuclear power stations and medical isotopes production reactors. It amazes me that after the lies in the lead-up to the Iraq war people still takes U.S. propaganda at face value.
WASHINGTON—The United Nations' nuclear agency said Iran has developed technologies needed to produce nuclear weapons, a finding that puts new pressure on the Obama administration to act more forcefully against Tehran.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, in its first public airing of such charges, said Tuesday that Tehran appears to have conducted advanced research on a miniaturized warhead that could be delivered by medium-range missiles. The watchdog agency also cited evidence that Iran has worked to develop the uranium metal used for warheads and said it has conducted computer simulations of nuclear detonations.
They're the same people who believe they "hate us for our freedom".
There's even a bunch of them here on Slashdot today. I'll probably get a nasty reply here from one of them.
Here is Bin Laden's Letter to America. His first demand is that Americans convert to Islam. The second is that the United States ditch the Constitution (and all of its rights) and impose Sharia law. (Including ban Alcohol, whip the immodest, stone adulterers, and kill homosexuals.) You seem bright - figure it out.
Its very simple really: when trying to determine WHY the US has taken military action of some sort - look to see which US Corporations will benefit the most and you have found the *real* reason the US is dropping bombs.
Let's test that "theory" out. In 1948 the Soviets cut off West Berlin from the rest of West Germany in an attempt to force the Western Allies from the city. In response the Western Allies carried out the Berlin Airlift, flying more than 200,000 flights into the city in a year to deliver supplies of all kinds to the people of West Berlin. The Soviet blockade ultimately failed.
So, question time - what US corporation was behind this? What corporate interest forced the US to expend massive amounts of resources to fly in supplies of all kinds into Berlin? Hmmmm? Berlin lay in ruins after the war, a final battleground for the Reich. What American corporation had such an enormous interest in the rubble of Berlin? If it was a corporation, shouldn't someone thank them?
Next, 2005, Aech province, Indonesia - the US sent the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to assist in relief efforts. It flew 2,800 relief missions, provided medical treatment for 2,200 people, and delivered 4,000 tons of supplies. What corporate interest was there?
Next up - Korea. When North Korea, supplied by the Soviet Union and China, invaded and threatened to overrun South Korea, the US intervened. Why? There isn't any oil there. And yet the US spent more than 30,000 American lives to keep South Korea an independent, free nation. What corporate presence was there in the territory newly liberated from Japan?
I am sure there will be some conflict with Iran, its just too perfect for the military industrial complex in the US.
Too perfect in what way? Too perfect to let 20% of the worlds oil be cut off and see yet another shock to the world economy? (The Greeks are already rioting in the streets. Are you looking for cannibalism?)
The US isn't in any other war at the moment,
You mean other than having 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, fighting alongside America's NATO and other Allies?
and a new war with a new opponent is a great way to ensure a lot of US corporations make big bank - at the expense of all those honest US soldiers who have to conduct it mind you.
Really? Really? You don't think it is a good idea to keep the world's oil supply from being cut by 20%? That, in and of itself is not a good idea? US defense spending is only about 4% of GDP. A large chunk of defense spending is for pay and benefits. Any one company is going to get only a tiny fraction of the remainder. Do you really think the US would go to war for the benefit of one company for a fraction of GDP? Frankly, that is asinine given the risks, and costs.
The idea that defense companies drive decisions about when America goes to war is stupid.
If you understand that it is saying the US allowed the export of commercial equipment that could be used to make either commercial goods or war material, i.e. - dual use. Most modern chemical equipment is like that as modern war gasses, that is nerve gas, were originally developed in the search for new insecticides. Selling Iraq a plant to make modern pesticides to keep their figs and dates free of bugs would be about the same as selling them a nerve gas plant.
The US did not supply Iraq with chemical weapons, the Iraqis made their own. It isn't that hard.
There are plenty of ways "anomalous" heat can be generated during chemical/mechanical processes without jumping right to the conclusion that it must be two nuclei fusing
If only there was some organization that had large numbers of people that might have the training and equipment to gain insight into such phenomena. If only.....
Hassan used his Facebook account and Internet forums to post his own comments and videos by others encouraging Muslims to fight nonbelievers and Muslims who did not agree with their desire to establish mandatory religious law, prosecutors said.
Extremists use the same social media as anyone else. I take it that you've never heard of the Internet Jihad?
This "monitoring" social sites is an attempt at disrupting things like OWS and other legit protest before they gain traction
"Monitoring" is a fancy way of saying "looking". You don't disrupt things bigger than the atomic scale by looking at them. "OWS" and other protests are a city problem, not a federal problem. The same backers for OWS are also largely behind the Obama presidency. If the "Occupy" movement turns violent, then all bets are off. That would seem unlikely as the "Occupy" movement is more hype than substance. You do know that at least some of the protestors were being paid to be there, don't you?
Christ there's one like you born every minute much to my dismay.
Slashdot Mirror
If they did, I very much doubt they will say anything about it.
K Street Traffic Runs Both Ways
The New K Street Project
Communist countries tend(ed) to be militantly atheistic and commonly harass, imprison, or otherwise interfere with religious institutions, including seizing or destroying their property.... until they think they need them, as occurred in the Soviet's Great Patriotic War.
Hmmm.... let's see....
Militantly atheist communist governments killed about 100,000,000 people in the last 100 years.
The birth rate of native Europeans is so far below replacement rate that they risk serious social problems in the next 30 years.
Gallium Arsenide is an interesting III-V semiconductor material for a number of reasons.
Engineers in the Soviet Union continued to perfect and use vacuum tubes long after they were abandoned in the West.
Well, bad luck, your suspicion turns out to be false. Of course what is interesting about that is that I was simply responding to your statements that were, to use your phrase, "linked to superstitions that have been passed down for millenia."
I don't remember Canada going to war when another of their citizens was captured and tortured by different bunch of savages on trumped-up charges. Why act differently now?
I'm not sure you are keeping your "savages" straight. (By the way - thanks for the link.)
That isn't even close to true, although I can understand why you might think that.
Right Islam is a violent faith based in hate.
So is Christianity unless you delete the fourth primary author entirely. What's your point?
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Mathew 22:34-40
Wow, that is harsh and hate filled.
I suspect you do love your neighbor as yourself, which is sad, really.
It works both ways.
Fact Sheet on the U.S.-UK Extradition Treaty
Independent review of the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements
You harken back to the old days that never were. And did you ever stop to think that records of gay marriages in the past were destroyed by the church in order to keep their handhold on the institution?
No doubt they were destroyed at the same time they destroyed all of the records of marriages to space aliens.
How the fuck do you know what went in 5000 years ago?
If only there were some records..... if only...
And how the fuck is that relevant today?
'Also let none of you devise evil in your heart against another, and do not love perjury; -- Zechariah 8:17 (580+ BCE)
"'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. -- Leviticus 19:18 (1270+ BCE)
That still seems sound.
In short, you win the award for Biggest Piece Of Shit Of The Day.
So you don't support the idea of civil discourse then?
Afghanistan and the Taliban didn't bomb the Twin Towers, genius.
Congratulations, you managed to pull a hat trick there. Try reading my post again - I didn't write that Afghanistan and the Taliban performed the attack on 9/11. Second, it doesn't matter that they didn't since the Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to operate from Afghan territory and conduct terror operations world wide, not to mention the attack on the United States. They also effectively integrated Al Qaeda into the government. Third, the Twin Towers weren't bombed, they were rammed by aircraft full of jet fuel.
The most they did was not capture and hand over bin Laden to the US, but then again why the fuck should they?
Two reasons - First, Bin Laden was the indicted leader of a band of international terrorists who repeatedly engaged in mass murder. Second, to avoid what actually happened when they didn't had him over as demanded in the ultimatum - invasion and being removed from power.
The US and the West generally were no friends of the Taliban.
The US and the West were generally willing to more or less ignore the Taliban until they let Al Qaeda run amok, engaging in mass murder around the world.
That chip on your shoulder seems to be interfering with thinking clearly.
Genius? I can understand why you might think that, but no, I simply try to be informed.
I'm afraid your post is largely nonsense.
Vyacheslav Danilenko – Background, Research, and Proliferation Concerns
Iran Accused of Nuclear Aims
Outright denial of the problem without any proof or reason except some unsupportable personal conviction is particularly vile and selfish.
And here we see why the "Climate Change" nee "Global Warming" movement is so subversive and dangerous. If someone where to say, "I don't belive in Einstein's theory of relativity", he would be told he is wrong, or ignored. If someone were to say, "I don't believe in the theory of continental drift", she would be told she is wrong, or ignored. But to DOUBT or DENY climate change is sacrilege - you are vile, selfish, practically an evil doer fit to be punished. Scientists who see the data differently are in danger of losing their jobs, and funding. It has happened before. What other science acts that way? What other theory demands such fealty?
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Scientists Behaving Badly - More nails for the coffin of man-made global warming
So, 97% of the world's scientists are religious zealots?
No, but not all of them feel free to speak their actual opinion in the face of "consensus" that can cost you a job. And pretty much all of them need funding which tends to be funneled towards climate change research that already assumes anthropogenic global warming exists.
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
You've got several bits of this wrong. The US didn't help the Taliban during the Soviet invasion because they didn't exist - they formed after the war in the chaos of the Afghan civil war. Helping the Afghan resistance was probably fine, but it might have helped avoid some problems to put some effort into helping the Afghans rebuild their society after the Soviets left - assuming they would accept the help. (Not a given.)
Don't kid yourself - Islamic extremism and terrorism was growing world-wide the entire time.
We attacked Iraq because "they tried to kill my dad." That's the short of it.
The short of it is that you aren't bringing any useful facts to the discussion, just buckets of nonsense from the fever swamps.
And in retaliation, we attacked......Iraq!
No... the US attacked Afghanistan. Saddam earned his own treatment several years later.
Al Qaeda formed a state within a state in Afghanistan.
No, the US didn't have ties to Al Qaeda. It did assist the Afghan resistance during the Soviet invasion and occupation, but not Al Qaeda.
As to "invade ourselves", "declare the CIA a domestic enemy and send drones to take them out" - silly nonsense.
I was under the impression it was about business.
Yes, the ignorant, inattentive, or doctrinaire leftists are often left with that impression - but that's all it is - an impression. It simply isn't true.
One of the things you might take as a clue is the simple fact that the attacks of September 11, 2001 left about 3,000 dead bodies in the US due to direct enemy attack. Even a European power would be roused to defend itself under similar circumstances. Well, actually they did - the self-defense provision of the NATO treaty was invoked and the US is fighting with its NATO allies (not to mention participation by the ANZACS) in Afghanistan. Hope that helps.
You seem to get most of this wrong.
Bin Laden wasn't a buddy of the US during the Soviet / Afghan war.
Bin Laden was attacking the United States in the 90s, including the bombings of two African embassies and the attack on the Cole.
The others were just formalities to sound good to his extremist followers.
You don't know what you are talking about.
What al-Qaida Really Wants
Do you have any evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons ? Because as far as I know, all they are doing is producing fuel for nuclear power stations and medical isotopes production reactors. It amazes me that after the lies in the lead-up to the Iraq war people still takes U.S. propaganda at face value.
Well, you are in luck, on more than one count.
Iran Accused of Nuclear Aims - U.N. Agency Cites Work on Weapons Technology, Raising Stakes for Washington
They're the same people who believe they "hate us for our freedom".
There's even a bunch of them here on Slashdot today. I'll probably get a nasty reply here from one of them.
Here is Bin Laden's Letter to America. His first demand is that Americans convert to Islam. The second is that the United States ditch the Constitution (and all of its rights) and impose Sharia law. (Including ban Alcohol, whip the immodest, stone adulterers, and kill homosexuals.) You seem bright - figure it out.
Its very simple really: when trying to determine WHY the US has taken military action of some sort - look to see which US Corporations will benefit the most and you have found the *real* reason the US is dropping bombs.
Let's test that "theory" out. In 1948 the Soviets cut off West Berlin from the rest of West Germany in an attempt to force the Western Allies from the city. In response the Western Allies carried out the Berlin Airlift, flying more than 200,000 flights into the city in a year to deliver supplies of all kinds to the people of West Berlin. The Soviet blockade ultimately failed.
So, question time - what US corporation was behind this? What corporate interest forced the US to expend massive amounts of resources to fly in supplies of all kinds into Berlin? Hmmmm? Berlin lay in ruins after the war, a final battleground for the Reich. What American corporation had such an enormous interest in the rubble of Berlin? If it was a corporation, shouldn't someone thank them?
Next, 2005, Aech province, Indonesia - the US sent the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to assist in relief efforts. It flew 2,800 relief missions, provided medical treatment for 2,200 people, and delivered 4,000 tons of supplies. What corporate interest was there?
Next up - Korea. When North Korea, supplied by the Soviet Union and China, invaded and threatened to overrun South Korea, the US intervened. Why? There isn't any oil there. And yet the US spent more than 30,000 American lives to keep South Korea an independent, free nation. What corporate presence was there in the territory newly liberated from Japan?
I am sure there will be some conflict with Iran, its just too perfect for the military industrial complex in the US.
Too perfect in what way? Too perfect to let 20% of the worlds oil be cut off and see yet another shock to the world economy? (The Greeks are already rioting in the streets. Are you looking for cannibalism?)
The US isn't in any other war at the moment,
You mean other than having 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, fighting alongside America's NATO and other Allies?
and a new war with a new opponent is a great way to ensure a lot of US corporations make big bank - at the expense of all those honest US soldiers who have to conduct it mind you.
Really? Really? You don't think it is a good idea to keep the world's oil supply from being cut by 20%? That, in and of itself is not a good idea? US defense spending is only about 4% of GDP. A large chunk of defense spending is for pay and benefits. Any one company is going to get only a tiny fraction of the remainder. Do you really think the US would go to war for the benefit of one company for a fraction of GDP? Frankly, that is asinine given the risks, and costs.
The idea that defense companies drive decisions about when America goes to war is stupid.
If you understand that it is saying the US allowed the export of commercial equipment that could be used to make either commercial goods or war material, i.e. - dual use. Most modern chemical equipment is like that as modern war gasses, that is nerve gas, were originally developed in the search for new insecticides. Selling Iraq a plant to make modern pesticides to keep their figs and dates free of bugs would be about the same as selling them a nerve gas plant.
The US did not supply Iraq with chemical weapons, the Iraqis made their own. It isn't that hard.
There are plenty of ways "anomalous" heat can be generated during chemical/mechanical processes without jumping right to the conclusion that it must be two nuclei fusing
If only there was some organization that had large numbers of people that might have the training and equipment to gain insight into such phenomena. If only.....
Regardless of whether or not we obfuscate their attempts at monitoring social sites these attacks are coming anyway,
Yes, that is the point. So why do you try to throw noise in the system to make them harder to detect and prevent?
anyway, you sir are the tool for actually thinking anyone serious about attacking would use Facebook to announce it.
Or simply better informed....
3 Men in NC Terror Ring Get 15-45 Years in Prison
Extremists use the same social media as anyone else. I take it that you've never heard of the Internet Jihad?
This "monitoring" social sites is an attempt at disrupting things like OWS and other legit protest before they gain traction
"Monitoring" is a fancy way of saying "looking". You don't disrupt things bigger than the atomic scale by looking at them. "OWS" and other protests are a city problem, not a federal problem. The same backers for OWS are also largely behind the Obama presidency. If the "Occupy" movement turns violent, then all bets are off. That would seem unlikely as the "Occupy" movement is more hype than substance. You do know that at least some of the protestors were being paid to be there, don't you?
Christ there's one like you born every minute much to my dismay.
Face, meet mirror.