Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

All things outside of Burning Man.
Locked
User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:36 pm

This dude has mental problems and is what is wrong with "certain" so called "americans" today.

http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/catalo ... orid=70378
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Kinetic IV
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Post by Kinetic IV » Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:36 pm

It looks interesting enough but yet I keep wondering...with the battle in Afghanistan being far from over, with many of the key players that would have been involved during the timeline of the book still over there and active, why on Earth would you go spill your guts about what you did, your tactics and stuff now? Retired or not perhaps he should have kept his mouth shut.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:58 am

DVD Burner wrote:This dude has mental problems and is what is wrong with "certain" so called "americans" today.
are you looking in a mirror when you make such statements?
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
EvilDustBooger
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Outside the Box

Post by EvilDustBooger » Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:07 am

Just remember, only another month or so until our federal
web of safety expires!
Hey kids, the sky is falling! Dangerous precedents being made!

:!: :!: Call/Write your senators and congressmen :!: :!:

Now WITHOUT the impending holidays or the SAFTEY of our military personnel getting in the way of clear thinking...please pay attention to
this sweeping, vital and historic legislation>

Please don`t forget what the Executive Administration is pulling.
War is War, but this is your own neighborhood we`re talking about.

Pray our representatives focus on trimming pork and dangerous politics and precedents from the
so-called Patriot Act, before we have a "President/Commander in Chief/King of the world and all of it`s inhabitants" shoved up our asses!
------AND-------
Let`s see some accountability coming from the White House.
These are not the Reagan Years...
...Let them know WE the People are watching!

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr :!:

User avatar
joel the ornery
Posts: 2657
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
Burning Since: 1998
Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
Contact:

Post by joel the ornery » Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:17 am

along with EDB's comments...

January 4, 2006
Social Insecurity Crisis
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

The year 2006 is just four days old, but I'm already prepared to nominate the natural resource of the year, the one that will have the most decisive impact on international relations - and that is undoubtedly oil.

Look at all the global trends involving oil (or gas) today, and they are all bad: the former leader of Germany gets voted out of office and goes to work for the president of Russia, running a pipeline company owned by Russia. The oil-for-food scandal tarnishes the U.N. The president of Iran, feeling so emboldened by the billions of dollars flowing into his country thanks to $60-a-barrel oil, engages in repeated rants about how the Holocaust was a myth. Vladimir Putin's oil-fueled government in Russia steadily erodes civil liberties at home, while using its energy clout abroad to try to punish Ukraine and to deflect U.N. pressure on Syria for its murderous campaign against Lebanese democrats and on Iran for its work to develop a nuclear bomb. I could go on. Do you have all day?

If you look at these trends, three things come to mind: They are all negative, they are all going to get worse with another year of $60-a-barrel oil, and the only force on the planet with the will and the way to neutralize their worst effects is America.

But here's the rub: America's refusal to have a serious energy policy makes these problems only more severe, and its refusal to have a serious entitlement policy - reforming Social Security and Medicare before they totally devour the U.S. budget - is only going to sap America's ability to play the global governing role that is so necessary for world stability.

To put it another way, our energy gluttony is strengthening the worst forces in the world and our entitlement gluttony is going to weaken our capacity to deal with those forces. As the Johns Hopkins University foreign affairs specialist Michael Mandelbaum puts it: "The greatest threat to America's role in the world today is not China. It's Medicare."

In a smart and original new book, "The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World's Government in the 21st Century," Mr. Mandelbaum argues that while U.S. foreign policy is hardly perfect, it is America - through its vast military deployments, diplomatic engagements and vital role in buttressing the global economy and its rules - that provides the basic governance that keeps the world stable and on a decent track.

Most countries in the world like this situation, he contends. They like it because they know that the U.S. is not a predatory power, so they are not afraid of the order it provides. They like it because this global order is helpful to every country in the world, but the cost of it is borne largely by U.S. taxpayers. And they like it because they can criticize the U.S. and still enjoy all the benefits it provides.

The best evidence for all this, Mr. Mandelbaum notes, is the fact that no military coalition has ever formed to counter America's global governing role - as happened with other hegemonic powers in history.

In Mr. Mandelbaum's view, America "is not the lion of the international system, terrorizing and preying on smaller, weaker animals in order to survive itself. It is, rather, the elephant, which supports a wide variety of other creatures - smaller mammals, birds and insects - by generating nourishment for them as it goes about the business of feeding itself."

No other country could play this crucial stabilizing role. But its continuation depends on "American taxpayers' being willing to keep paying for it," Mr. Mandelbaum said - and that gets us back to our runaway entitlements.

USA Today recently quoted David Walker, the U.S. comptroller general, as saying we are about to be hit by "a demographic tsunami" that will "never recede." The baby boomers total 77 million, and their first wave turns 60 this year. Unless we trim the Medicare and Social Security benefits promised to these boomers, the paper noted, America's "national debt will grow more than $3 trillion through 2010, to $11.2 trillion. ... The interest alone would cost $561 billion in 2010, the same as the Pentagon [budget]."

The same as the Pentagon's! So either Social Security and Medicare shrink or the Pentagon shrinks - because higher taxes seem to be out of the question for now. If history is any guide, Americans will prefer Social Security and Medicare over paying to make the world safe for China, India, Russia and Iran to pursue their interests.

If so, the world may soon test out one of the most important theses of Mr. Mandelbaum's book: that the greatest threat to global stability is "not too much American power, but too little."

Kinetic IV
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Post by Kinetic IV » Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:00 am

Energy Crisis? Come on, this is so simple. Go read this morning's Drudge Report and then do some more digging on the manufactured crisis that's coming up. THe US when it's over will have control over the Iraqi oil fields and if the Iranian president doesn't shut up he's going to be looking out at an American flag from a jail cell as the US under NATO and UN authority sweeps in to rid the world of the rogue nation nuclear threat. Then we'll have access to the Iranian oil fields and at that point it's cheap energy for all with Russia's vast reserves being the only thing left that we can't tap as we wish.

The Iranian situation got simplified there but this has the potential to be downright ugly in a short period of time. It's worrisome...very much so.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!

User avatar
EvilDustBooger
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Outside the Box

Post by EvilDustBooger » Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:32 am

Yeah, We`d better watch it... another generation of entitlements.... corruption... war, a few botched colonizing attempts, throw in a couple disasters...an uprising or two.....and you`ve got France.

*And those figures above about the Pentagon`s budget are staggering, compelling me to continue with...

*A few points of interest about the "Patriot Act".

According to our Administration, if you don`t agree with all of this ....you are a commie/lunatic/evil-doer......only "tair-ist" need fear these provisions,... unless of course you are wrongly accused...then you are merely fucked with no refuge or recourse, a tragic casualty of America`s ever expanding war on whatever to keep it`s citizens safe.
But if just a few unfortunate souls are screwed over and destroyed in the course of keeping
you safe, it`s all worth it because after all, you are safe, right?
Unless you are one of the unfortunate ones of course....



----a few security provisions being debated:

Sec. 201: Adds to the list of offenses that can be used to justify a federal wiretap. That list now includes the use or development of chemical weapons, crimes of violence against Americans overseas, development of weapons of mass destruction, multinational terrorism, financial transactions with a country designated as a sponsor of terrorism, and providing material support to terrorists or terror organizations.


Sec. 202: Adds computer crimes to the list of offenses that justify a federal wiretap.


Sec. 203(b): Allows foreign intelligence gathered through criminal wiretaps to be shared with a wide array of federal agencies, including defense and intelligence agencies.


Sec. 203(d): Authorizes law-enforcement personnel to share foreign intelligence information with the same broad set of federal agencies.


Sec. 206: Expands the use of "multipoint" or "roving" wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations.


Sec. 207: Expands the duration of foreign intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. citizens.


Sec. 209: Clarifies that law enforcement only needs a simple search warrant to seize a voice mail message, not a wiretap order. The Justice Department argued for this provision as a way to update earlier law, which demanded a wiretap order before investigators could get access to voice mail messages stored on message services.


Sec. 212: Allows communications service providers to disclose suspicious e-mail messages to police if there's immediate danger of physical injury.

The Justice Department says that prior to the Patriot Act, the FBI could not accept emergency calls from Internet service providers (ISPs) who had knowledge of an ongoing crime. Now, the FBI can intervene immediately if an online conversation reveals an emergency.

Some legal scholars say this provision is open to abuse, since the ISP gets to determine what constitutes an emergency. Critics want any information that was obtained inappropriately to be thrown out of court if there's a criminal prosecution.


Sec. 214: Makes it easier for investigators to use "rap and trace" or "pen register" devices in foreign intelligence investigations. These devices relay the numbers of the people on either end of the call.


Sec. 215: Allows a special judge to issue an order for "any tangible thing" that is sought in connection to a foreign intelligence investigation. Previously, this power was limited to hotel, car rental and storage records. Librarians and bookstore owners have objected strenuously, saying the FBI could use this section to search patrons records. This provision also prohibits the records holder from talking to anyone about the order.

It has been used 35 times as of March 31, 2005, never at a library or bookstore.


Sec. 217: Allows the government to eavesdrop on electronic communications if one party agrees, without judicial oversight. The section was designed for cases of computer trespassing, when an Internet service provider wants the police to help investigate an attack. Some critics say this provision gives the ISPs and the police the power to go after people who might be illegally sharing files or who have violated the terms of their use agreements.


Sec. 218: Expands the use of foreign intelligence wiretaps to cases where intelligence is merely a "significant" purpose of the probe, rather than the "primary" purpose as before. This key amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is also seen as key to removing the "wall" between intelligence and criminal investigations.

Sec. 220: Allows nationwide search warrants for electronic communications. Eliminates the need to seek multiple warrants for Internet messages, which may pass through several jurisdictions.


Sec. 223: Allows people to sue the government over unauthorized disclosures of wiretap information.


Sec. 225: Provides immunity from lawsuits for people cooperating in an intelligence wiretap.

User avatar
EvilDustBooger
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Outside the Box

Post by EvilDustBooger » Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:41 am

Information Sharing
Sec. 203(b) and (d): Allows information from criminal probes to be shared with intelligence agencies and other parts of the government.

Pro:
Supporters say the provisions have greatly enhanced information sharing within the FBI, and with the intelligence community at large.
Con:
Critics warn that unrestricted sharing could lead to the development of massive databases about citizens who are not the targets of criminal investigations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roving Wiretaps
Sec. 206: Allows one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices, eliminating the need for separate court authorizations for a suspect's cell phone, PC and Blackberry, for example.

Pro:
The government says roving wiretaps are needed to deal with technologically sophisticated terrorists.
Con:
Critics say the language of the act could lead to privacy violations of anyone who comes into casual contact with a suspect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to Records
Sec. 215: Allows easier access to business records in foreign intelligence investigations.

Pro:
The provision allows investigators to obtain books, records, papers, documents and other items sought "in connection with" a terror investigation.
Con:
Critics attack the breadth of the provision, saying the law could be used to demand the reading records of library or bookstore patrons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Intelligence Wiretaps and Searches
Sec. 218: Lowers the bar for launching foreign intelligence wiretaps and searches.

Pro:
Allows investigators to get a foreign intelligence wiretap or search order, even if they end up bringing criminal charges instead.
Con:
Because foreign intelligence probes are conducted in secret, with little oversight, critics say abuses could be difficult to uncover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
“Sneak & Peek” Warrants
Sec. 213: Allows "Sneak and peek" search warrants, which let authorities search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of a probe. Does not expire.

Pro:
Supporters say this provision has already allowed investigators to search the houses of drug dealers and other criminals without providing notice that might have jeopardized an investigation.
Con:
Critics say the provision allows the use of "sneak and peek" warrants for even minor crimes, not just terror and espionage cases.
----------------------------------------------------------
Material Support
Sec. 805: Expands the existing ban on giving "material support" to terrorists to include "expert advice or assistance." Does not expire.

Pro:
Supporters say it helps cut off the support networks that make terrorism possible.
Con:
Critics say the provision could lead to guilt by association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'Lone Wolf' Provision
Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 allows intelligence investigations of lone terrorists not connected to a foreign nation or organization.

While not part of the Patriot Act, this provision also sunsets on Dec. 31 and is under review. Civil liberties groups say the provision could sweep in protesters and those suspected of involvement in domestic terrorism. Language passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee would make this section permanent.

Information Sharing
Sections 203(b) and 203(d) of the Patriot Act are at the heart of the effort to break down the "wall" that used to separate criminal and intelligence investigations. The Justice Department has frequently blamed the wall for the failure to find and detain Sept. 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar prior to the attacks. CIA agents had information that both men were in the United States and were suspected terrorists, but the FBI says it did not receive that information until August 2001.

U.S. officials also blame the wall for the failure to fully investigate Zacarias Moussaoui, who has since pleaded guilty in connection with the Sept. 11 plot. The government says that existing procedures made investigators afraid of sharing information between the intelligence and criminal sides of the probe. Supporters say these provisions have greatly enhanced information sharing within the FBI, and with the intelligence community at large.

Civil libertarians say the failure to share information was largely a result of incompetence and misunderstanding of the law. They say investigators were always allowed to share grand jury information, which is specifically authorized by this section. They warn that the scope of the Patriot Act language is far too broad and encourages unlimited sharing of information, regardless of the need.

Critics say that investigators should have to explain why information is being shared, and that only information related to terrorism or espionage should be released. They warn that unrestricted sharing could lead to the development of massive databases about innocent citizens.


Roving Wiretaps
The Justice Department has long complained about restrictions that required separate court authorizations for each device used by the target of an investigation, whether it's a computer terminal, a cell phone or a Blackberry. This provision of the Patriot Act specifically allows "roving wiretaps" against suspected spies and terrorists. The government says it has long had this type of flexibility in criminal cases, and that such authority is needed in dealing with technologically sophisticated terrorists.

Surveillance experts point out, however, that criminal wiretaps must "ascertain" whether the person under investigation is going to be using the device before the tap takes place. Civil liberties groups say the language of the Patriot Act could lead to privacy violations of anyone who comes into casual contact with the suspect. They want Congress to require investigators to specify just which device is going to be tapped, or that the suspect be clearly identified, in order to protect the innocent from unwarranted snooping.


Access to Records
Probably the most hotly debated provision of the law, Section 215 has come to be known as the "libraries provision," even though it never mentions libraries or bookstores. Civil liberties groups attack the breadth of this section -- which allows investigators to obtain "any tangible thing (including books, records, papers, documents and other items)," as long as the records are sought "in connection with" a terror investigation.

Library groups said the law could be used to demand the reading records of patrons. But the government points out that the First Amendment activities of Americans are specifically protected by the law. The Justice Department has released previously classified statistics to show the law has never been used against libraries or bookstores. But the act's critics argue that there's no protection against future abuse.

Civil liberties groups have proposed numerous amendments: special protections for libraries and bookstores; a requirement that investigators explain the reason the records are sought; and an end to the "gag rule" that prohibits people who receive a 215 order from talking about it with anyone. The Justice Department has agreed that recipients can consult with an attorney and is open to an amendment that specifies this right. But the government says the controversy over this provision is an overreaction, and that this section merely expands longstanding access to certain business records.


Foreign Intelligence Wiretaps and Searches
Criminal investigators have a high bar to reach when asking for permission to wiretap or search a suspect's home. The bar is lower in counterterror or counterintelligence probes, where investigators must only prove the suspect is an "agent of a foreign power." Previously, investigators had to show that the "primary purpose" of the order was to gather foreign intelligence; the Patriot Act lowered that requirement to a "significant purpose." The government said this change takes away another brick in "the wall" separating criminal and intelligence probes: It allows investigators to get a foreign intelligence wiretap or search order, even though they might end up bringing criminal charges.

Civil liberties groups insist that "the wall" rose up through misunderstandings, and that there was no hard barrier against launching a criminal probe against someone being investigated as a spy or terrorist. They point to a 2002 ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review that buttresses this point.

But critics say the Patriot Act creates a new risk in Section 218 -- that investigators will too easily use spying and terrorism as an excuse for launching foreign intelligence wiretaps and searches. They point to the fact that the number of intelligence wiretaps now exceeds the number of criminal taps. Since these probes are conducted in secret, with little oversight, abuses could be difficult to uncover. Civil liberties groups say one antidote would be to require that the Justice Department release more information about foreign intelligence investigations.


“Sneak & Peek” Warrants
This section allows for "delayed notice" of search warrants, which means the FBI can search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of the investigation. The Justice Department says this provision has already allowed investigators to search the houses of drug dealers and other criminals without providing notice that might have jeopardized an investigation. Investigators still have to explain why they want to delay notice, and must eventually tell the target about the search.

Critics say that investigators already had the power to conduct secret searches in counterterror and counterespionage probes. The Patriot Act, they say, authorized the use of this technique for any crime, no matter how minor. They say that "sneak and peek" searches should be narrowly limited to cases in which an investigation would be seriously jeopardized by immediate notice. Legislation to cut off funding for such searches passed the House in 2003. However, this provision does not face a sunset as other controversial provisions do, so it may be harder for opponents to amend it.


Material Support

The antiterrorism law passed in 1996, in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, outlawed providing "material support" to foreign terrorist organizations, and expanded the definition of support to include "personnel" and "training." Section 805 of the Patriot Act extended that ban to "expert advice or assistance."

The Justice Department has said this expansion is critical to cutting off the networks of support that make terrorism possible. But many legal scholars -- and even some judges -- contend the provision is vague. They say it will lead to guilt by association and might criminalize unwitting contact with a terrorist group.

Opponents also argue that it stifles free speech, by raising fears that any charitable contribution could somehow be linked to a terrorist group by the Justice Department, and then construed as "material support." Courts have differed on the constitutionality of these efforts to cut off the "lifeblood" of terrorism. Some have ruled they are unconstitutionally vague, others have upheld these laws. In response, Congress tried to tighten the definitions in the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terror Prevention Act. But the language in that law is also being challenged in court.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:53 pm

Nice info. Is that the patriot act?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Kinetic IV
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Post by Kinetic IV » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:55 pm

DVD Burner wrote:Nice info. Is that the patriot act?
Unfortunately, yes.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:57 pm

Looks like Sharon will be no more very soon.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
EvilDustBooger
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Outside the Box

Post by EvilDustBooger » Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:21 pm

DVD Burner wrote:Nice info. Is that the patriot act?
Those are only small snippets of the security issues buried in the massive
stack of layered legislative crap that is the "Patriot Act".

There is lot`s more there than we will ever see or understand, but this is our present way of conducting our country`s business...
....cluster fuck style.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:20 am

I was remebering awhile ago Joel and another eplayan were posting on a thread Joel created, that stated : "now that Arafat was gone there would be a chance for peace in the middle east."

Sharon will be gone shortly, I wonder if Joel and this other eplayan still feel Sharon will have sucsessfully created a chance for peace in the middle east?

Ahem! :shock:
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:39 am

I have concerns about what will come to fruition upn Sharon's death...

Let us all hope that the Palestinians, as well as the Israelis practice some self-restraint and learn to live together.

and now, onto a little something i like to refer to as "a call to self-reliance"
January 6, 2006

The New Red, White and Blue
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

As we enter 2006, we find ourselves in trouble, at home and abroad. We are in trouble because we are led by defeatists - wimps, actually.
What's so disturbing about President Bush and Dick Cheney is that they talk tough about the necessity of invading Iraq, torturing terror suspects and engaging in domestic spying - all to defend our way of life and promote democracy around the globe.

But when it comes to what is actually the most important issue in U.S. foreign and domestic policy today - making ourselves energy efficient and independent, and environmentally green - they ridicule it as something only liberals, tree-huggers and sissies believe is possible or necessary.
Sorry, but being green, focusing the nation on greater energy efficiency and conservation, is not some girlie-man issue. It is actually the most tough-minded, geostrategic, pro-growth and patriotic thing we can do. Living green is not for sissies. Sticking with oil, and basically saying that a country that can double the speed of microchips every 18 months is somehow incapable of innovating its way to energy independence - that is for sissies, defeatists and people who are ready to see American values eroded at home and abroad.

Living green is not just a "personal virtue," as Mr. Cheney says. It's a national security imperative.

The biggest threat to America and its values today is not communism, authoritarianism or Islamism. It's petrolism. Petrolism is my term for the corrupting, antidemocratic governing practices - in oil states from Russia to Nigeria and Iran - that result from a long run of $60-a-barrel oil. Petrolism is the politics of using oil income to buy off one's citizens with subsidies and government jobs, using oil and gas exports to intimidate or buy off one's enemies, and using oil profits to build up one's internal security forces and army to keep oneself ensconced in power, without any transparency or checks and balances.

When a nation's leaders can practice petrolism, they never have to tap their people's energy and creativity; they simply have to tap an oil well. And therefore politics in a petrolist state is not about building a society or an educational system that maximizes its people's ability to innovate, export and compete. It is simply about who controls the oil tap.
In petrolist states like Russia, Iran, Venezuela and Sudan, people get rich by being in government and sucking the treasury dry - so they never want to cede power. In non-petrolist states, like Taiwan, Singapore and Korea, people get rich by staying outside government and building real businesses.

Our energy gluttony fosters and strengthens various kinds of petrolist regimes. It emboldens authoritarian petrolism in Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Sudan and Central Asia. It empowers Islamist petrolism in Sudan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. It even helps sustain communism in Castro's Cuba, which survives today in part thanks to cheap oil from Venezuela. Most of these petrolist regimes would have collapsed long ago, having proved utterly incapable of delivering a modern future for their people, but they have been saved by our energy excesses.

No matter what happens in Iraq, we cannot dry up the swamps of authoritarianism and violent Islamism in the Middle East without also drying up our consumption of oil - thereby bringing down the price of crude. A democratization policy in the Middle East without a different energy policy at home is a waste of time, money and, most important, the lives of our young people.

That's because there is a huge difference in what these bad regimes can do with $20-a-barrel oil compared with the current $60-a-barrel oil. It is no accident that the reform era in Russia under Boris Yeltsin, and in Iran under Mohammad Khatami, coincided with low oil prices. When prices soared again, petrolist authoritarians in both societies reasserted themselves.

We need a president and a Congress with the guts not just to invade Iraq, but to also impose a gasoline tax and inspire conservation at home. That takes a real energy policy with long-term incentives for renewable energy - wind, solar, biofuels - rather than the welfare-for-oil-companies-and-special-interests that masqueraded last year as an energy bill.
Enough of this Bush-Cheney nonsense that conservation, energy efficiency and environmentalism are some hobby we can't afford. I can't think of anything more cowardly or un-American. Real patriots, real advocates of spreading democracy around the world, live green.

Green is the new red, white and blue.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
EvilDustBooger
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Outside the Box

Post by EvilDustBooger » Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:57 am

Peace is not going to happen in the Middle East.
For thousands of years or at the very least from the 12 & 13th century,
this region and it`s people have been
"ruled" by feudal kings and warlords of various sorts.
Peace is not a working concept there. Not in the gene pool.
Enforced quietude is the best we can hope for.

I think Sharon was an effective leader, and will be remembered in the west in the short term as a peacemaker because of the Gaza pullout.

Most Palestinians would simply spit on his grave if they could get near it.

Shalom.

Kinetic IV
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Post by Kinetic IV » Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:12 am

While I care about the Palestinian situation the thing that worries the hell out of me is Iran having nukes. With Sharon in power you had a shrewd military general with extensive experience in both the military and diplomatic arenas calling the shots, now the Israelis have....well what kinds of credentials does the new guy have? Not very damn much tp speak of. With the Iranians skipping the IAEA meeting in Vienna yesterday and their president making stupid assed comments that have Pat Robertson jealous...the relative stability that did exist over there has evaporated.

I hope those Israeli nukes are ready cause my gut feeling on this is we're heading for the ultimate instability meltdown. Please let me be wrong.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!

User avatar
EvilDustBooger
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Outside the Box

Post by EvilDustBooger » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:06 am

I wouldn`t worry about Jerusalem`s politics,
Israel will hold the high ground
til NYC crumbles into the harbor or forever,
which ever comes first.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:16 am

You must remember that the world did not have too much of a problem with Iran till after the "axis of evil" speech.

General problems yes but not at the level of shit talking that is going on now.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Kinetic IV
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Post by Kinetic IV » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:25 am

DVD Burner wrote:You must remember that the world did not have too much of a problem with Iran till after the "axis of evil" speech.

General problems yes but not at the level of shit talking that is going on now.
Say what? Sheesh how far back do you wanna go? Who was really behind the Beirut barracks bombing? Iran has been a major pain in America's ass since 1979 and it's only got worse over the years. Now we get this latest sabre rattling and it appears they're weeks away from having a working device if they don't already have one. Iran was bad news before, Iran with nukes controlling the Strait of Hormuz is a colossal nightmare.

I will say the Axis of Evil speech accelerated some things but this was a conflict looking for a trigger well before Bush made that speech.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:46 am

Kinetic IV wrote: Say what? Sheesh how far back do you wanna go?
As far back as you like. The British and Americans have caused the modern day problems in the middle east for a very long time in history:



Published on Sunday, April 20, 2003 by Reuters
Ex-U.S. Official Says CIA Aided Baathists
CIA offers no comment on Iraq coup allegations

by David Morgan

PHILADELPHIA—If the United States succeeds in shepherding the creation of a post-war Iraqi government, a former National Security Council official says, it won't be the first time that Washington has played a primary role in changing that country's rulers.

Roger Morris, a former State Department foreign service officer who was on the NSC staff during the Johnson and Nixon administrations, says the CIA had a hand in two coups in Iraq during the darkest days of the Cold War, including a 1968 putsch that set Saddam Hussein firmly on the path to power.

Morris says that in 1963, two years after the ill-fated U.S. attempt at overthrow in Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs, the CIA helped organize a bloody coup in Iraq that deposed the Soviet-leaning government of Gen. Abdel-Karim Kassem.

"This takes you down a longer, darker road in terms of American culpability ....

"As in Iran in '53, it was mostly American money and even American involvement on the ground," says Morris, referring to a U.S.-backed coup that brought the return of the shah to neighbouring Iran.

Kassem, who had allowed communists to hold positions of responsibility in his government, was machine-gunned to death. And the country wound up in the hands of the Baath party.

At the time, Morris continues, Saddam was a Baath operative studying law in Cairo, one of the venues the CIA chose to plan the coup.

In fact, he claims the former Iraqi president castigated by President George W. Bush as one of history's most "brutal dictators" was actually on the CIA payroll in those days.

"There's no question," Morris says. "It was there in Cairo that (Saddam) and others were first contacted by the agency."

In 1968, Morris says, the CIA encouraged a palace revolt among Baath party elements led by long-time Saddam mentor Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, who would turn over the reins of power to his ambitious protégé in 1979.

"It's a regime that was unquestionably midwived by the United States, and the (CIA's) involvement there was really primary," Morris says.

His version of history is a far cry from current American rhetoric about Iraq — a country that top U.S. officials say has been liberated from decades of tyranny and given the chance for a bright democratic future.

There's no mention of America's own alleged role in giving birth to the regime.

A spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency declined to comment on the claims of CIA involvement in the Iraqi coups but said Morris' assertion that Saddam once received payments from the CIA is "utterly ridiculous."

Morris, who resigned from the NSC staff over the 1970 U.S. invasion of Cambodia, says he learned the details of American covert involvement in Iraq from ranking CIA officials of the day, including Teddy Roosevelt's grandson, Archibald Roosevelt.

Now 65, Morris went on to become a Nixon biographer and is currently writing a book about U.S. covert action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He regards Saddam as a deposed U.S. client in the mold of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos and former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.

"We climb into bed with these people without really knowing anything about their politics," Morris says. "It's not unusual, of course, in American policy. We tire of these people, and we find reasons to shed them." But many experts, including foreign affairs scholars, say there is little to suggest U.S. involvement in Iraq in the 1960s.

David Wise, a Washington-based author who has written extensively about Cold War espionage, says he is only aware of records showing that a CIA group known as the "Health Alteration Committee" tried to assassinate Kassem in 1960 by sending the Iraqi leader a poisoned monogrammed handkerchief.

"Clearly, they felt that Kassem was somebody who had to be eliminated," Wise says.

Morris contends that little is known about CIA involvement in the Iraqi coups because the Middle East did not hold as much strategic importance in the 1960s and most senior U.S. officials involved there at the time have since died.

But even if the United States played no role in the rise of Iraq's Baath party, experts say Washington has obviously had to confront unintended consequences of former U.S. policies — including those of Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, who was CIA director before becoming president.

"There are always some unintended consequences," says Helmut Sonnenfeldt, guest scholar in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution and former NSC staffer.

"There were unintended consequences in World War I that brought the rise of Hitler."

The United States and other Western powers supported Saddam's regime during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, even after the Baghdad government used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Kurdish villagers in Halabja.

The 1988 atrocity recently was a cornerstone of U.S. justifications for its war to topple Saddam's regime.

Before war broke out last month, a flurry of U.S. headlines also called attention to reports that pathogens used by Iraq for its biological warfare program came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and a private Manassas, Va.-based biological samples repository called the American Type Culture Collection.

Officials at the two institutions said shipments of anthrax, West Nile virus, botulinum toxins and other pathogens were sent to Iraq in the 1980s with U.S. commerce department approval for medical research purposes.

Even Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program, which U.S. officials said was on the verge of producing a nuclear bomb last year, got under way with help from a 1950s Eisenhower administration program to share the peaceful benefits of nuclear energy called "Atoms for Peace."

That is according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a Washington-based group co-founded by media mogul Ted Turner and former U.S. senator Sam Nunn to reduce the global threat of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

James Phillips, senior Middle East analyst for the Heritage Foundation, disagrees that Bush's war in Iraq is the result of CIA involvement.

But he says the United States did turn a blind eye to the chance to topple Saddam during the 1991 Gulf War, just as it left Afghanistan to the mercy of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network after Soviet forces left that country.

"I am reminded of the biblical expression about the sins of the father," Phillips says.

"The first Bush administration was the one that decided to cut off aid to the mujahideen in Afghanistan and set them adrift. And they were also the ones who decided not to go to Baghdad during the first Gulf War."

Copyright 2003 Reuters Ltd
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
EvilDustBooger
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Outside the Box

Post by EvilDustBooger » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:52 am

Kinetic IV wrote: Who was really behind the Beirut barracks bombing?
The former hafez(spit)assad of Syria is strongly suspected in conspiring
in that.

Iran can propose a political threat in the region as we`ve found out time after time.
Being mostly secular and prone to being lead by fanatical clergy and militias(since the shaw left) it is kind of like a slightly more organized Afghanistan in that it (the government)has a hard time controlling and moderating it`s own people. Totally full of shiite. I know.

I wouldn`t worry about nukes there though.
IMHO of course, they aren`t organized enough yet (without serious outside help)to pull anything big off.


Chechnya worry about nukes.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:02 am

America will do the nuking first
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
joel the ornery
Posts: 2657
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
Burning Since: 1998
Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
Contact:

Post by joel the ornery » Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:20 am

DVD Burner wrote:America will do the nuking first
i know this is a silly request.

cite?

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:29 am

joel the ornery wrote: i know this is a silly request.

cite?
You're right. It is a silly request. :lol:

PNAC, the Carlyle Group, The Trilateral Commission, AEI ............
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:33 am

Building a Better Bomb

News: Meet the Penetrator, one of the 'mini-nukes' the Bush administration wants to develop for conventional wars.

By Michael Scherer

May/June 2002 Issue



The Fall of a True Believer
How Jack Abramoff gained the whole world and lost just about everything.
Since the end of the Cold War, the defense industry and its congressional allies have been quietly campaigning for a new type of nuclear weapon. Rather than relying on big bombs intended to annihilate entire cities, they want to develop "mini-nukes" and other small warheads designed to demolish underground bunkers or buried stores of chemical or biological agents. Warning that the current stockpile was "not developed with this mission in mind," the Defense Department issued a report last summer explaining that "lower yield" weapons could achieve "needed neutralization."

Now, in the wake of Sept. 11, the Bush administration is moving to add a smaller bomb to America's nuclear arsenal. The plans became public in March, when the media obtained a classified Pentagon report calling for the development of low-yield weapons for use in battlefield situations. But the news reports did not point out that by then the president's budget already included up to $15 million to study designs for what it calls a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator -- a weapon envisioned by its backers as a "bunker buster." Although the precise size of its payload has yet to be determined, the Penetrator is intended to give military strategists a new option: a deeply burrowing nuke specifically designed for use in otherwise conventional conflicts.

There's only one hitch in the administration's plan: In 1994, Congress banned the research and development of any new low-yield nuclear weapons. Since then, the defense industry has essentially been working around the law, insisting that it wants only to "modify" and "package" existing weapons to deliver small nuclear payloads. Last year, for example, an earth-burrowing "penetrator" that could be equipped with a nuclear warhead was patented by Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin. The company, which runs the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, claims the weapon can punch through up to 35 feet of reinforced concrete. C. Paul Robinson, the director of Sandia, told reporters that such firepower could be used to destroy underground bunkers in Afghanistan. "By putting a nuclear warhead on one of those weapons instead of high explosives, you would multiply the explosive power by a factor of more than a million," said Robinson, who also chairs an advisory council of the US Strategic Command.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, the administration insisted that its plan to study designs for such weapons does not violate the ban on nuclear research. John Gordon, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, confirmed that he is setting up design teams at each of the nation's three nuclear labs -- Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore -- but added that the scientists would only "think about and explore what might be possible." When lawmakers expressed concern that the administration is effectively changing weapons policy without consulting Congress, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith assured them that the design teams will work only on a "straight modification of an existing system that's out there now, packaged in a way that could penetrate."

Such carefully phrased distinctions have done little to mollify those who fear that a low-yield bomb will undercut efforts to defuse a new arms race. In February, 76 members of Congress sent a letter to President Bush, expressing concern that any development of mini-nukes would send a signal "that the US is abandoning international efforts to stem the proliferation of nuclear weapons." Lawmakers expect the administration to ask Congress to lift the research ban entirely, enabling designers to move weapons like the Penetrator into production more quickly.

Since 1978, US policy has stipulated that nuclear weapons will not be used against nonnuclear countries unless they attack the United States in alliance with nuclear-armed nations. But the classified Pentagon report in March praised the "greater flexibility" offered by low-yield weapons and instructed the military to prepare contingency plans for using nuclear warheads in other conflicts that could involve weapons of mass destruction, including clashes between Arabs and Israelis or North and South Korea. After the report was leaked to the media, the administration quickly backtracked, insisting that the old policy remains in effect.

Lost in the debate has been any discussion of the potential effects of smaller nuclear bombs. Low-yield weapons are supposed to reduce collateral damage by delivering warheads of less than five kilotons -- about a third the size of the bomb used on Hiroshima.

But even with the smaller payloads, mini-nukes could kill anyone within a few miles of a targeted bunker. Initial tests of Sandia's new earth-burrowing weapon, for example, show that it blasts only 12 feet into concrete -- not nearly deep enough to prevent deadly nuclear fallout. "The physics is simple enough," says Robert Nelson, a physicist at Princeton University's Program for Science and Global Security. "To completely contain a one-kiloton nuclear explosion, you would have to go at least 300 feet."

With the Bush administration refusing to sign an international moratorium on nuclear testing, congressional opponents fear that developing smaller bombs sends the wrong signal to other nations eager to up the nuclear ante. "The last thing the terror-ravaged world needs right now is a new nuclear threat," says Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who sponsored the congressional letter to Bush. "How can we discourage India and Pakistan from using their nuclear weapons against each other while we're pursuing a whole new generation of weapons at home?"
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
joel the ornery
Posts: 2657
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
Burning Since: 1998
Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
Contact:

Post by joel the ornery » Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:42 am

DVD Burner wrote:
joel the ornery wrote: i know this is a silly request.

cite?
You're right. It is a silly request. :lol:

PNAC, the Carlyle Group, The Trilateral Commission, AEI ............
well, those certainly aren't cites.


i should've exercised some restraint and allowed you your tangent without my participation.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:31 pm

joel the ornery wrote:
i should've exercised some restraint and allowed you your tangent without my participation.
I hear ya Joel.

I know how it takes you awhile to catch on before you get it and I give you the "I told you so".


:lol:
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:33 pm

DVD, aren't court jesters supposed to entertain?

when do you become entertaining?
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:39 pm

Simply Joel wrote:DVD, aren't court jesters supposed to entertain?

when do you become entertaining?
How about right now?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:50 pm

Thing that cracks me up is that most naive individuals don’t realize that all the folks that Bush invited to the Whitehouse the other day, (secretaries of state and defense.) except Albright are members of one or more or all the organizations I posted above.

In addition to that, they all have major financial interests in either oil or military sales.

Accept Albright.

And the big crack me up is that this Bush administration constantly states they have a stratagy for victory.
I guess that's why you go and get a bunch of previous war monger LOOSERS to offer suggestions on how the best way is gonna be to get out of the current mess this country is in.


:lol:
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Locked

Return to “Open Discussion”