Discussion:
British 'hacker' fears Guantanamo
(too old to reply)
Lobo
2006-04-13 17:17:56 UTC
Permalink
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4715612.stm
Wednesday, 12 April 2006
A British man accused of being behind the largest ever hack of US
government computer networks could end up at Guantanamo Bay, his
lawyer has claimed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4715612.stm
Profile: Gary McKinnon

But Gary McKinnon, or Solo as he was known online, paints a very
different picture of himself, and his motivation. In a BBC interview
last summer, Mr McKinnon said that he was not a malicious hacker bent
on bringing down US military systems, but rather more of a "bumbling
computer nerd".

He said he's no web vandal, or virus writer, and that he never acted
with malicious intent.

But he did admit that he hacked into dozens of US government computer
systems. In fact, he calmly detailed just how easy it was to access
extremely sensitive information in those systems.

"I found out that the US military use Windows," said Mr McKinnon in
that BBC interview. "And having realised this, I assumed it would
probably be an easy hack if they hadn't secured it properly."

Using commercially available software, Mr McKinnon probed dozens of US
military and government networks. He found many machines without
adequate password or firewall protection. So, he simply hacked into
them.
....

NOTE: I think the fact that this self proclaimed "bumbling computer
nerd" has managed to hack sensitive US military computers tells me
that other, more sophisticated and dangerous hackers, have ALREADY
gone a lot further.

If the US (or any other government) thinks they can legislate laws
with stiff penalties to prevent their systems from being comprimised,
they are out of touch with reality. They should reward these "bumbling
computer nerds" for showing them how poorly secured they are.
n***@wigner.berkeley.edu
2006-04-13 20:43:55 UTC
Permalink
I like the part where he says,

"I found out that the US military use Windows!"

You should have made that your subject line.
Lobo
2006-04-13 21:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@wigner.berkeley.edu
I like the part where he says,
"I found out that the US military use Windows!"
You should have made that your subject line.
He he he... I shoulda.....
Scary stuff isn't it?
Hadron Quark
2006-04-14 10:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
Post by n***@wigner.berkeley.edu
I like the part where he says,
"I found out that the US military use Windows!"
You should have made that your subject line.
He he he... I shoulda.....
Scary stuff isn't it?
Incredibly scarey.

What is even more frightening is that only way they caught him was
because he registered a remotepc aplication using his real email
address : that and the fact he left messages for users....

This wonderful military : they use openly accessible systems on the
internet using windows?

If I were more suspicious I'd say it was just a ruse to attract
hackers and they have rattled Gary's cage just to attract more bottom
feeders.

I mean : this is the most well equipped army in the world with top
brains working for it.

Does nobody else thing this could just be a sting operation?
billwg
2006-04-14 18:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron Quark
This wonderful military : they use openly accessible systems on the
internet using windows?
Well everyone on the planet exept the bushmen and other aborigines that
MIT is planning to give hand-cranked computers uses the internet, Q!
Haven't you heard? The US armed forces use it a lot for email and
staying connected with the folks back home when they are on a
deployment. They use it to advertise their opportunities as well as
provide useful information to their members and friends. All
unclassified, of course, regardless of what the outsiders might suppose.

If you are a member of a ship's company, there is usually a web site
provided either on the .gov domain or paid for from the ship's
recreation fund that is used to post news items and messages between and
among the ship's crew and families. Such sites are no more secure than
any amateur website, but there is no classified information on them
either.

The secure stuff is on secure networks and you chippers are not likely
to ever gain access to one. If you do, though, and, if you are caught,
you would probably wish you were at Gitmo instead of Leavenworth!
LOL!!!
Post by Hadron Quark
If I were more suspicious I'd say it was just a ruse to attract
hackers and they have rattled Gary's cage just to attract more bottom
feeders.
I mean : this is the most well equipped army in the world with top
brains working for it.
Does nobody else thing this could just be a sting operation?
The Army, Navy, and Air Force are not all about blowing things up, Q.
They play golf and bowl and go skiing just like everyone else. If you
want to send your spouse, brother, sister, child, parent, relative, or
friend an email while they are somewhere like Iraq, Afghanistan, or even
in the Persian Gulf, you can do it and get an answer right back.
Larry Qualig
2006-04-15 14:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
Post by n***@wigner.berkeley.edu
I like the part where he says,
"I found out that the US military use Windows!"
You should have made that your subject line.
He he he... I shoulda.....
Post by n***@wigner.berkeley.edu
"I found out that the US military use Windows!"
Scary stuff isn't it?
What's actually scary is that some people (read: you) are unable to
distinguish the difference between private secure channels that the
military uses for tactical communications from a web-site that's on the
public internet. There is a difference... a *huge* difference.
Lobo
2006-04-15 16:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Qualig
Post by Lobo
Post by n***@wigner.berkeley.edu
I like the part where he says,
"I found out that the US military use Windows!"
You should have made that your subject line.
He he he... I shoulda.....
Post by n***@wigner.berkeley.edu
"I found out that the US military use Windows!"
Scary stuff isn't it?
What's actually scary is that some people (read: you) are unable to
distinguish the difference between private secure channels that the
military uses for tactical communications from a web-site that's on the
public internet. There is a difference... a *huge* difference.
Of course there is. I don't for a minute think that *any* tactical
communication is done over the public internet. The military has their
own satellite connections for this purpose and it is one hell of a lot
faster and thicker than the 'net.

But don't you think that *any* access to military web sites shows a
flagrant disregard for basic security? I would find this 'scary' if a
commercial site was so poorly secured that access could be readily
obtained with the "script kiddies" software.

Security is only as strong as it's weakest link. Once a hacker has
gained basic access, it becomes easier to gain further access.

What do you think these military computers, connected to the internet,
are used for? Surfing, chat rooms, sending birthday greetings to
relatives and other innocuous activities? Might not they contain
internal memos and emails, purchase orders to war materials suppliers,
supply logistics or other sensitive information? Much can be gleaned
about the enemy's movements and strengths by intercepting a purchase
order for boots.
M
2006-04-15 16:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
Post by Larry Qualig
Post by Lobo
Post by n***@wigner.berkeley.edu
I like the part where he says,
"I found out that the US military use Windows!"
You should have made that your subject line.
He he he... I shoulda.....
Post by n***@wigner.berkeley.edu
"I found out that the US military use Windows!"
Scary stuff isn't it?
What's actually scary is that some people (read: you) are unable to
distinguish the difference between private secure channels that the
military uses for tactical communications from a web-site that's on the
public internet. There is a difference... a *huge* difference.
Of course there is. I don't for a minute think that *any* tactical
communication is done over the public internet. The military has their
own satellite connections for this purpose and it is one hell of a lot
faster and thicker than the 'net.
But don't you think that *any* access to military web sites shows a
flagrant disregard for basic security? I would find this 'scary' if a
commercial site was so poorly secured that access could be readily
obtained with the "script kiddies" software.
Security is only as strong as it's weakest link. Once a hacker has
gained basic access, it becomes easier to gain further access.
What do you think these military computers, connected to the internet,
are used for? Surfing, chat rooms, sending birthday greetings to
relatives and other innocuous activities? Might not they contain
internal memos and emails, purchase orders to war materials suppliers,
supply logistics or other sensitive information? Much can be gleaned
about the enemy's movements and strengths by intercepting a purchase
order for boots.
A good analyst could probable tell you a lot from the 'innocuous' emails.
With the best will in the world people often let slip little snippets of
information.

There was an interesting news item (on British tv) apparently the security
agencies in the west don't bother with their own spy satelite systems
anymore, it's all outsourced to commercial organisations. Analysts that
used to work for the CIA, MI6, whatever, now work for these commercial
organisations. So if you want to know what anyone is up to these days, you
go to one of these organisations and ask them. They showed pictures of the
Iranian nuclear facilities being buried under sand, to try and hide what
was going on.

All it takes these days is money. However if you are a cheap skate, you get
some 'script kiddies' to hack into the US military computers. Just remember
to tell them not to leave messages :-)

Regards,

M
John Bailo
2006-04-15 16:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by M
There was an interesting news item (on British tv) apparently the security
agencies in the west don't bother with their own spy satelite systems
anymore, it's all outsourced to commercial organisations.
Just wait till someone lobs a strategic missile from the midEast at us and
the Pentagon generals are busy trying to understand what the tech at the
call center in Pondicherry is saying.
--
Texeme Textcasting powers
http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Lobo
2006-04-15 17:22:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 16:38:33 GMT, M
Post by M
Post by Lobo
Post by Larry Qualig
Post by Lobo
Post by n***@wigner.berkeley.edu
I like the part where he says,
"I found out that the US military use Windows!"
You should have made that your subject line.
He he he... I shoulda.....
Post by n***@wigner.berkeley.edu
"I found out that the US military use Windows!"
Scary stuff isn't it?
What's actually scary is that some people (read: you) are unable to
distinguish the difference between private secure channels that the
military uses for tactical communications from a web-site that's on the
public internet. There is a difference... a *huge* difference.
Of course there is. I don't for a minute think that *any* tactical
communication is done over the public internet. The military has their
own satellite connections for this purpose and it is one hell of a lot
faster and thicker than the 'net.
But don't you think that *any* access to military web sites shows a
flagrant disregard for basic security? I would find this 'scary' if a
commercial site was so poorly secured that access could be readily
obtained with the "script kiddies" software.
Security is only as strong as it's weakest link. Once a hacker has
gained basic access, it becomes easier to gain further access.
What do you think these military computers, connected to the internet,
are used for? Surfing, chat rooms, sending birthday greetings to
relatives and other innocuous activities? Might not they contain
internal memos and emails, purchase orders to war materials suppliers,
supply logistics or other sensitive information? Much can be gleaned
about the enemy's movements and strengths by intercepting a purchase
order for boots.
A good analyst could probable tell you a lot from the 'innocuous' emails.
With the best will in the world people often let slip little snippets of
information.
There was an interesting news item (on British tv) apparently the security
agencies in the west don't bother with their own spy satelite systems
anymore, it's all outsourced to commercial organisations. Analysts that
used to work for the CIA, MI6, whatever, now work for these commercial
organisations. So if you want to know what anyone is up to these days, you
go to one of these organisations and ask them. They showed pictures of the
Iranian nuclear facilities being buried under sand, to try and hide what
was going on.
What is happening is the "privatization of war" by corporations that
now have more real power than elected governments in many countries,
the USA being a prime example.

http://www.pajiba.com/why-we-fight.htm
</quote>
In his farewell address shortly before leaving office in 1961,
President Eisenhower warned against the increasing power and influence
of the military-industrial complex, a theme and speech that Jarecki
threads throughout the film. Eisenhower was in favor of a strong
military presence, but he knew that wedding it to commerce would be to
start down a dangerous path. Jarecki traces the growth of the
relationship between Wall Street and Washington, from World War II to
the current war in Iraq, against which most of Jarecki’s accusals are
aimed. I say “accusals” instead of “anger” because Jarecki’s film is
anything but hot-headed, forgoing glib liberal complaints for a
balanced, accurate invective.
<quote>

Here's a fast torrent of the film "Why We Fight":
http://www.mininova.org/tor/68961
Post by M
All it takes these days is money. However if you are a cheap skate, you get
some 'script kiddies' to hack into the US military computers. Just remember
to tell them not to leave messages :-)
Bwahahahaha....
Post by M
Regards,
M
M
2006-04-15 17:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 16:38:33 GMT, M
Post by M
Post by Lobo
Post by Larry Qualig
Post by Lobo
Post by n***@wigner.berkeley.edu
I like the part where he says,
"I found out that the US military use Windows!"
You should have made that your subject line.
He he he... I shoulda.....
Post by n***@wigner.berkeley.edu
"I found out that the US military use Windows!"
Scary stuff isn't it?
What's actually scary is that some people (read: you) are unable to
distinguish the difference between private secure channels that the
military uses for tactical communications from a web-site that's on the
public internet. There is a difference... a *huge* difference.
Of course there is. I don't for a minute think that *any* tactical
communication is done over the public internet. The military has their
own satellite connections for this purpose and it is one hell of a lot
faster and thicker than the 'net.
But don't you think that *any* access to military web sites shows a
flagrant disregard for basic security? I would find this 'scary' if a
commercial site was so poorly secured that access could be readily
obtained with the "script kiddies" software.
Security is only as strong as it's weakest link. Once a hacker has
gained basic access, it becomes easier to gain further access.
What do you think these military computers, connected to the internet,
are used for? Surfing, chat rooms, sending birthday greetings to
relatives and other innocuous activities? Might not they contain
internal memos and emails, purchase orders to war materials suppliers,
supply logistics or other sensitive information? Much can be gleaned
about the enemy's movements and strengths by intercepting a purchase
order for boots.
A good analyst could probable tell you a lot from the 'innocuous' emails.
With the best will in the world people often let slip little snippets of
information.
There was an interesting news item (on British tv) apparently the security
agencies in the west don't bother with their own spy satelite systems
anymore, it's all outsourced to commercial organisations. Analysts that
used to work for the CIA, MI6, whatever, now work for these commercial
organisations. So if you want to know what anyone is up to these days, you
go to one of these organisations and ask them. They showed pictures of the
Iranian nuclear facilities being buried under sand, to try and hide what
was going on.
What is happening is the "privatization of war" by corporations that
now have more real power than elected governments in many countries,
the USA being a prime example.
For the most part power comes from money. The more money you have got, the
more power you have.

Remember the Barons of the 12th Century and their private armies. Things to
some extent are probable just going full circle. Instead of Barons we have
now got CEO's.

Everything changes, and yet nothing changes :-)

<snip>

Regards,

M
billwg
2006-04-15 17:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
Much can be gleaned
about the enemy's movements and strengths by intercepting a purchase
order for boots.
Only that they are coming to kick your butt, wolfie! LOL!!!
M
2006-04-15 17:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by billwg
Post by Lobo
Much can be gleaned
about the enemy's movements and strengths by intercepting a purchase
order for boots.
Only that they are coming to kick your butt, wolfie! LOL!!!
Tell that to the families of the 2000+ US service personnel that have lost
their lives.

Remember Vietnam who was it who kicked who's butt?

The US have got all this fancy gear, latest in stealth fighters, best tanks
in the world etc etc, but it ain't worth squat for the type of wars you
have to fight these days.

Beating the Iraqi army was the easy bit, it's what comes next that is the
problem.

Mind you the US could always turn Iraq into a training facility as we did
with Northern Ireland, then may be they will learn something.

Regards,

M
billwg
2006-04-15 20:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by M
Post by billwg
Post by Lobo
Much can be gleaned
about the enemy's movements and strengths by intercepting a purchase
order for boots.
Only that they are coming to kick your butt, wolfie! LOL!!!
Tell that to the families of the 2000+ US service personnel that have lost
their lives.
Well, m, that isn't the same thing at all. The price has been paid and
it is an issue after the fact whether or not it was worth it. You might
ask Iran or North Korea about their thoughts, too. The Iraq action was
a result of having to follow through on threats made by the US regarding
enforcement of the UN sanctions. The US and UK were MOL standing alone
after the French and other Europeans backed down from the issue.
Post by M
Remember Vietnam who was it who kicked who's butt?
The same kind of thing, IMO. There was a lack of freedom to act
efficiently imposed by the USSR's position there and, today, it might be
a very different outcome since the North Vietnamese would be at a
complete disadvantage with no means to resist what would be much more
intensive bombing.
Post by M
The US have got all this fancy gear, latest in stealth fighters, best tanks
in the world etc etc, but it ain't worth squat for the type of wars you
have to fight these days.
You speak out of ignorance, m. If you have to beat Iraq's army, you
would probably want that gear. If you want to ferret out good muslims
from bad muslims, maybe you need another tactic, say a fence around the
whole place to let the natives sort themselves out.
Post by M
Beating the Iraqi army was the easy bit, it's what comes next that is the
problem.
Not so easy as all that, m, it took a lot of talent and the lesson is
not wasted on the other countries in the region. It is easy to sit back
and see how your suicide squad can operate under an occupation force,
but how many troops do they have altogether? Hard to recruit a
disciplined army of suicide bombers! LOL!!!
M
2006-04-15 22:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by billwg
Post by M
Post by billwg
Post by Lobo
Much can be gleaned
about the enemy's movements and strengths by intercepting a purchase
order for boots.
Only that they are coming to kick your butt, wolfie! LOL!!!
Tell that to the families of the 2000+ US service personnel that have lost
their lives.
Well, m, that isn't the same thing at all. The price has been paid and
it is an issue after the fact whether or not it was worth it. You might
ask Iran or North Korea about their thoughts, too. The Iraq action was
a result of having to follow through on threats made by the US regarding
enforcement of the UN sanctions. The US and UK were MOL standing alone
after the French and other Europeans backed down from the issue.
You could say the price was paid if the US had left Iraqi soil. However they
haven't and the price is far from paid, it is *continuing* to be paid every
day. Thankfully our soldiers are not being killed in the same number, but
lives are still being lost.
Post by billwg
Post by M
Remember Vietnam who was it who kicked who's butt?
The same kind of thing, IMO. There was a lack of freedom to act
efficiently imposed by the USSR's position there and, today, it might be
a very different outcome since the North Vietnamese would be at a
complete disadvantage with no means to resist what would be much more
intensive bombing.
If you put a conventional army in front of the US they will be beaten, no
doubt about it. However put a guerrilla army in front of them and they
don't know how to deal with that.

They tried carpet bombing, the North Vietnamese it didn't work. Problem was
they had no factories to bomb, all their arms where being supplied by the
likes of China etc. North Vietnamese just kept coming at the US until they
had had enough.
Post by billwg
Post by M
The US have got all this fancy gear, latest in stealth fighters, best tanks
in the world etc etc, but it ain't worth squat for the type of wars you
have to fight these days.
You speak out of ignorance, m. If you have to beat Iraq's army, you
would probably want that gear. If you want to ferret out good muslims
from bad muslims, maybe you need another tactic, say a fence around the
whole place to let the natives sort themselves out.
No YOU are the one that speaks out of ignorance. As the Israeli's would have
told you, the Iraqi army was largely a band on conscripts who didn't want
to be there, very ill disciplined and quite easy for *any* professional
western army to beat. Unlike the North Vietnamese, the Iraqi army soon
decided they had had enough when there front line was carpet bombed.

Trust me, I know more about Iraq than you will ever realise or be prepared
to talk about.
Post by billwg
Post by M
Beating the Iraqi army was the easy bit, it's what comes next that is the
problem.
Not so easy as all that, m, it took a lot of talent and the lesson is
not wasted on the other countries in the region.
Rubbish, a few days of sustained bombing, couple of local battles and
occupation was in full swing.

The Israeli's put paid to plans that 20 million Arabs had in the 6 day war,
so if the US had not walked over the Iraqi army it would have been a totall
embarrassment.
Post by billwg
It is easy to sit back
and see how your suicide squad can operate under an occupation force,
but how many troops do they have altogether? Hard to recruit a
disciplined army of suicide bombers! LOL!!!
Disciplined enough to blow themselves up, and be responsible for a large
ongoing loss of life. Whats more it doesn't look like it is likely to come
to an end anytime soon. Not a laughing matter.

Point is they have got considerable more stomach for this than the US
electorate has for losing their soldiers. More US soldiers have lost their
lives while they have been occupying the country than where lost in the
initial battle for Iraq. Like I said in the situation that the US now finds
itself, (and likely to find itself in future conflicts), stealth bombers
and all that other fancy gear ain't worth squat!!

Why do think our boys have been recently sent to Afghanistan. It's because
we have the expertise after 30+ years in Northern Ireland.

Regards,

M
Lobo
2006-04-15 23:39:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:16:21 GMT, M
Post by M
Post by billwg
Post by M
Post by billwg
Post by Lobo
Much can be gleaned
about the enemy's movements and strengths by intercepting a purchase
order for boots.
Only that they are coming to kick your butt, wolfie! LOL!!!
Tell that to the families of the 2000+ US service personnel that have lost
their lives.
Well, m, that isn't the same thing at all. The price has been paid and
it is an issue after the fact whether or not it was worth it. You might
ask Iran or North Korea about their thoughts, too. The Iraq action was
a result of having to follow through on threats made by the US regarding
enforcement of the UN sanctions. The US and UK were MOL standing alone
after the French and other Europeans backed down from the issue.
Most countries weren't ready to go to war against Iraq based on lies
and FUD by Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell and the rest of the gang.
Other countries had news media that didn't get caught up in
Bush/Cheney's phony fear mongering and gave air time to the numerous
voices that were telling the truth about the situation in Iraq.

Unfortunately, even 1,000,000 demonstrators in the UK who knew better
couldn't dissuade their idiot prime minister, Tony Blair.
Post by M
You could say the price was paid if the US had left Iraqi soil. However they
haven't and the price is far from paid, it is *continuing* to be paid every
day. Thankfully our soldiers are not being killed in the same number, but
lives are still being lost.
Look at the chart here to see US/UK deaths since "Mission
Accomplished". It has been steadily rising (second graph).
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html
Post by M
Post by billwg
Post by M
Remember Vietnam who was it who kicked who's butt?
The same kind of thing, IMO. There was a lack of freedom to act
efficiently imposed by the USSR's position there and, today, it might be
a very different outcome since the North Vietnamese would be at a
complete disadvantage with no means to resist what would be much more
intensive bombing.
Over the course of the Vietnam war, total U.S. bombing tonnage far
exceeded that dropped on Germany, Italy, and Japan in World War II. If
it wasn't for fear of USSR retaliation, the US would have dropped
nuclear bombs as several people in the pentagon were advising.

I suggest you do some reading on the Vietnam war if you want to know
why the US didn't stand a chance of winning, other than killing every
man, woman and child in that country.
Post by M
If you put a conventional army in front of the US they will be beaten, no
doubt about it. However put a guerrilla army in front of them and they
don't know how to deal with that.
They tried carpet bombing, the North Vietnamese it didn't work. Problem was
they had no factories to bomb, all their arms where being supplied by the
likes of China etc. North Vietnamese just kept coming at the US until they
had had enough.
A lot of their small arms and munitions were made in underground mini
factories spread around the country. The used a lot of unexploded US
bombs to make booby traps and other weapons against the Americans.
Post by M
Post by billwg
Post by M
The US have got all this fancy gear, latest in stealth fighters, best tanks
in the world etc etc, but it ain't worth squat for the type of wars you
have to fight these days.
You speak out of ignorance, m. If you have to beat Iraq's army, you
would probably want that gear. If you want to ferret out good muslims
from bad muslims, maybe you need another tactic, say a fence around the
whole place to let the natives sort themselves out.
That very same tactic was used from 1991 to 2003. Why was it changed?
Post by M
No YOU are the one that speaks out of ignorance. As the Israeli's would have
told you, the Iraqi army was largely a band on conscripts who didn't want
to be there, very ill disciplined and quite easy for *any* professional
western army to beat. Unlike the North Vietnamese, the Iraqi army soon
decided they had had enough when there front line was carpet bombed.
Trust me, I know more about Iraq than you will ever realise or be prepared
to talk about.
The Iraqis didn't have very good equipment (most of it was leftover
junk from 1991 or sub-standard crap from other nations sold on the
black market). They also had absolutely no support logistics for their
troops. No fuel, munitions or even food could be forwarded.
Post by M
Post by billwg
Post by M
Beating the Iraqi army was the easy bit, it's what comes next that is the
problem.
Not so easy as all that, m, it took a lot of talent and the lesson is
not wasted on the other countries in the region.
It certainly wasn't a wasted "lesson". Even countries that had
populations that were once friendly towards the US are now seething
with hatred.
Post by M
Rubbish, a few days of sustained bombing, couple of local battles and
occupation was in full swing.
The Israeli's put paid to plans that 20 million Arabs had in the 6 day war,
so if the US had not walked over the Iraqi army it would have been a totall
embarrassment.
Post by billwg
It is easy to sit back
and see how your suicide squad can operate under an occupation force,
but how many troops do they have altogether? Hard to recruit a
disciplined army of suicide bombers! LOL!!!
Iraq now has 100,000's of men in militias. Thousands have even been
trained by US troops. The US no longer has any control over them.
Post by M
Disciplined enough to blow themselves up, and be responsible for a large
ongoing loss of life. Whats more it doesn't look like it is likely to come
to an end anytime soon. Not a laughing matter.
Point is they have got considerable more stomach for this than the US
electorate has for losing their soldiers. More US soldiers have lost their
lives while they have been occupying the country than where lost in the
initial battle for Iraq. Like I said in the situation that the US now finds
itself, (and likely to find itself in future conflicts), stealth bombers
and all that other fancy gear ain't worth squat!!
Why do think our boys have been recently sent to Afghanistan. It's because
we have the expertise after 30+ years in Northern Ireland.
Canada has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan and they are doing one hell of
a lot better than the Americans in winning the hearts and minds of the
locals.
Post by M
Regards,
M
BTW, I see the US media are getting the populace worked up over Iran
now. Notice how little press is given to the voices of reason? This is
the administration's work up to the necessity of having 3 or 4
PERMANENT bases in Iraq. Watch the spin from the White House in the
coming months.

I'm betting they can fool the American people twice. They just got to
do a little more fear mongering among the masses and Bush will be back
in control to 'protect' the poor things.
Mark Kent
2006-04-16 11:09:48 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Lobo
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:16:21 GMT, M
Post by M
Post by billwg
Post by M
Post by billwg
Post by Lobo
Much can be gleaned
about the enemy's movements and strengths by intercepting a purchase
order for boots.
Only that they are coming to kick your butt, wolfie! LOL!!!
Tell that to the families of the 2000+ US service personnel that have lost
their lives.
Well, m, that isn't the same thing at all. The price has been paid and
it is an issue after the fact whether or not it was worth it. You might
ask Iran or North Korea about their thoughts, too. The Iraq action was
a result of having to follow through on threats made by the US regarding
enforcement of the UN sanctions. The US and UK were MOL standing alone
after the French and other Europeans backed down from the issue.
Most countries weren't ready to go to war against Iraq based on lies
and FUD by Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell and the rest of the gang.
Other countries had news media that didn't get caught up in
Bush/Cheney's phony fear mongering and gave air time to the numerous
voices that were telling the truth about the situation in Iraq.
Unfortunately, even 1,000,000 demonstrators in the UK who knew better
couldn't dissuade their idiot prime minister, Tony Blair.
Absolutely. There has never been much support for this war in the UK,
it's seen very much as US thing - George Bush's war, with Tony Blair
climbing as far up Bush's ar*e as he can. The disaster continues, of
course, and will do so until the various commercial interests have got
whatever it is they wanted out of the situation. Presumably Bush wants
an oil-field in Iraq with "property of GWB" written on the side.
Post by Lobo
Post by M
You could say the price was paid if the US had left Iraqi soil. However they
haven't and the price is far from paid, it is *continuing* to be paid every
day. Thankfully our soldiers are not being killed in the same number, but
lives are still being lost.
Look at the chart here to see US/UK deaths since "Mission
Accomplished". It has been steadily rising (second graph).
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html
It amazes me how the US media continues to present this in such a way
that folk like Billwg genuinely seem to believe that things are
"improving". There appears to be no limit to the gullibility of the US
population. Still, there's apparently no limit to that of the UK, if
you look at the number of people who watch Big Brother, drink lager and
get fat.
Post by Lobo
Post by M
Post by billwg
Post by M
Remember Vietnam who was it who kicked who's butt?
The same kind of thing, IMO. There was a lack of freedom to act
efficiently imposed by the USSR's position there and, today, it might be
a very different outcome since the North Vietnamese would be at a
complete disadvantage with no means to resist what would be much more
intensive bombing.
Over the course of the Vietnam war, total U.S. bombing tonnage far
exceeded that dropped on Germany, Italy, and Japan in World War II. If
it wasn't for fear of USSR retaliation, the US would have dropped
nuclear bombs as several people in the pentagon were advising.
I suggest you do some reading on the Vietnam war if you want to know
why the US didn't stand a chance of winning, other than killing every
man, woman and child in that country.
Probably depends on what you read...
Post by Lobo
Post by M
If you put a conventional army in front of the US they will be beaten, no
doubt about it. However put a guerrilla army in front of them and they
don't know how to deal with that.
They tried carpet bombing, the North Vietnamese it didn't work. Problem was
they had no factories to bomb, all their arms where being supplied by the
likes of China etc. North Vietnamese just kept coming at the US until they
had had enough.
A lot of their small arms and munitions were made in underground mini
factories spread around the country. The used a lot of unexploded US
bombs to make booby traps and other weapons against the Americans.
Post by M
Post by billwg
Post by M
The US have got all this fancy gear, latest in stealth fighters, best tanks
in the world etc etc, but it ain't worth squat for the type of wars you
have to fight these days.
You speak out of ignorance, m. If you have to beat Iraq's army, you
would probably want that gear. If you want to ferret out good muslims
from bad muslims, maybe you need another tactic, say a fence around the
whole place to let the natives sort themselves out.
That very same tactic was used from 1991 to 2003. Why was it changed?
Because playing with the latest tech toys didn't work, say?
Post by Lobo
Post by M
No YOU are the one that speaks out of ignorance. As the Israeli's would have
told you, the Iraqi army was largely a band on conscripts who didn't want
to be there, very ill disciplined and quite easy for *any* professional
western army to beat.
An interesting linkage here - wonder what this might have to do with the
Israelis?
Post by Lobo
Unlike the North Vietnamese, the Iraqi army soon
Post by M
decided they had had enough when there front line was carpet bombed.
Trust me, I know more about Iraq than you will ever realise or be prepared
to talk about.
The Iraqis didn't have very good equipment (most of it was leftover
junk from 1991 or sub-standard crap from other nations sold on the
black market). They also had absolutely no support logistics for their
troops. No fuel, munitions or even food could be forwarded.
Beating a badly trained & equiped army was hardly very impressive,
particularly with 100% air superiority, and a firm technical lead.
Post by Lobo
Post by M
Post by billwg
Post by M
Beating the Iraqi army was the easy bit, it's what comes next that is the
problem.
Not so easy as all that, m, it took a lot of talent and the lesson is
not wasted on the other countries in the region.
It certainly wasn't a wasted "lesson". Even countries that had
populations that were once friendly towards the US are now seething
with hatred.
There is a new generation of terrorists, a direct consequence of
Rumsfeld's imperialistic games. I would dearly like to see that
character, one of the most unpleasant I've ever noted in politics, moved
out of power. He doesn't even have Bush's excuse of being dumb.
Post by Lobo
Post by M
Rubbish, a few days of sustained bombing, couple of local battles and
occupation was in full swing.
The Israeli's put paid to plans that 20 million Arabs had in the 6 day war,
so if the US had not walked over the Iraqi army it would have been a totall
embarrassment.
Post by billwg
It is easy to sit back
and see how your suicide squad can operate under an occupation force,
but how many troops do they have altogether? Hard to recruit a
disciplined army of suicide bombers! LOL!!!
Iraq now has 100,000's of men in militias. Thousands have even been
trained by US troops. The US no longer has any control over them.
It never did have any control.
Post by Lobo
Post by M
Disciplined enough to blow themselves up, and be responsible for a large
ongoing loss of life. Whats more it doesn't look like it is likely to come
to an end anytime soon. Not a laughing matter.
Point is they have got considerable more stomach for this than the US
electorate has for losing their soldiers. More US soldiers have lost their
lives while they have been occupying the country than where lost in the
initial battle for Iraq. Like I said in the situation that the US now finds
itself, (and likely to find itself in future conflicts), stealth bombers
and all that other fancy gear ain't worth squat!!
Why do think our boys have been recently sent to Afghanistan. It's because
we have the expertise after 30+ years in Northern Ireland.
Canada has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan and they are doing one hell of
a lot better than the Americans in winning the hearts and minds of the
locals.
Helps if you don't shoot up weddings, destroy key religious sites, that
kind of thing.
Post by Lobo
BTW, I see the US media are getting the populace worked up over Iran
now. Notice how little press is given to the voices of reason? This is
the administration's work up to the necessity of having 3 or 4
PERMANENT bases in Iraq. Watch the spin from the White House in the
coming months.
I'm betting they can fool the American people twice. They just got to
do a little more fear mongering among the masses and Bush will be back
in control to 'protect' the poor things.
They can keep fooling the US people, over and over and over again, I'll
wager.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Harrisberger's Fourth Law of the Lab:
Experience is directly proportional to the
amount of equipment ruined.
M
2006-04-16 13:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Mark Kent wrote:

<snip>
Post by Mark Kent
Post by M
No YOU are the one that speaks out of ignorance. As the Israeli's would
have told you, the Iraqi army was largely a band on conscripts who didn't
want to be there, very ill disciplined and quite easy for *any*
professional western army to beat.
An interesting linkage here - wonder what this might have to do with the
Israelis?
My linkage comes in the form of the fact that Israel has fought several wars
with the Arabs in the past, has got the *best* secret service in the world
and would have been able to tell both the US and the UK, that altough Iraq
had a large army, it was a 4th rate army at best.
Post by Mark Kent
Unfortunately, even 1,000,000 demonstrators in the UK who knew better
couldn't dissuade their idiot prime minister, Tony Blair.
I watched a program all about Tony Blair, and what I didn't appreciate (and
probable you don't either) is that he doesn't leave his religion at the
church on sunday. When he gets it into his head that he thinks he is right
on a particular issue, it becomes a matter of 'faith' rather than
objectivity, which is actually quite scary. I wouldn't describe him as an
idiot, but I think he could be quite possible described as dangerous.

Regards,

M
Lobo
2006-04-16 14:34:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:32:45 GMT, M
Post by M
<snip>
Post by Mark Kent
Post by M
No YOU are the one that speaks out of ignorance. As the Israeli's would
have told you, the Iraqi army was largely a band on conscripts who didn't
want to be there, very ill disciplined and quite easy for *any*
professional western army to beat.
An interesting linkage here - wonder what this might have to do with the
Israelis?
My linkage comes in the form of the fact that Israel has fought several wars
with the Arabs in the past, has got the *best* secret service in the world
and would have been able to tell both the US and the UK, that altough Iraq
had a large army, it was a 4th rate army at best.
I agree that the Israelis know everything that was/is going on in
Iraq. If they thought the Iraqi's were reconstituting their nuclear
program they would have bombed them again long before the Americans
attacked. The same for WMD.

The US will end up with permanent bases in Iraq (they are now
constructing a massive embassy in Baghdad which will house up to 3,000
people). This works out great for Israel.

The Americans knew damn well how bad the Iraqi army was, both in 1991
and in 2003. They figured they could do a little "shock and awe" and
they would have a ready victory.
Post by M
Post by Mark Kent
Unfortunately, even 1,000,000 demonstrators in the UK who knew better
couldn't dissuade their idiot prime minister, Tony Blair.
I watched a program all about Tony Blair, and what I didn't appreciate (and
probable you don't either) is that he doesn't leave his religion at the
church on sunday. When he gets it into his head that he thinks he is right
on a particular issue, it becomes a matter of 'faith' rather than
objectivity, which is actually quite scary. I wouldn't describe him as an
idiot, but I think he could be quite possible described as dangerous.
I don't know much about Blair. I'll have to google him. I'm dismayed
that he (like Bush) drags his religion into the picture. Faith based
'anything' leads to conflict as history has shown.

I agree that "idiot" was the wrong term. I was thinking in the terms
of "idiot savant" where one has a lot of smarts in one area but is
completely stupid in another.
Post by M
Regards,
M
M
2006-04-16 15:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:32:45 GMT, M
Post by M
<snip>
Post by Mark Kent
Post by M
No YOU are the one that speaks out of ignorance. As the Israeli's would
have told you, the Iraqi army was largely a band on conscripts who
didn't want to be there, very ill disciplined and quite easy for *any*
professional western army to beat.
An interesting linkage here - wonder what this might have to do with the
Israelis?
My linkage comes in the form of the fact that Israel has fought several
wars with the Arabs in the past, has got the *best* secret service in the
world and would have been able to tell both the US and the UK, that
altough Iraq had a large army, it was a 4th rate army at best.
I agree that the Israelis know everything that was/is going on in
Iraq. If they thought the Iraqi's were reconstituting their nuclear
program they would have bombed them again long before the Americans
attacked. The same for WMD.
The US will end up with permanent bases in Iraq (they are now
constructing a massive embassy in Baghdad which will house up to 3,000
people). This works out great for Israel.
The Americans knew damn well how bad the Iraqi army was, both in 1991
and in 2003. They figured they could do a little "shock and awe" and
they would have a ready victory.
I totally agree. We all know this had more to do with both the US having a
strong presence in the region and 'Oil', (and possible unfinished business
when Bush senior was in the White House).

Lets face it there are some nasty despots around the World. I don't see any
western army queueing up so sort out that nasty little despot running
Zimbabwe.
Post by Lobo
Post by M
Post by Mark Kent
Unfortunately, even 1,000,000 demonstrators in the UK who knew better
couldn't dissuade their idiot prime minister, Tony Blair.
I watched a program all about Tony Blair, and what I didn't appreciate
(and probable you don't either) is that he doesn't leave his religion at
the church on sunday. When he gets it into his head that he thinks he is
right on a particular issue, it becomes a matter of 'faith' rather than
objectivity, which is actually quite scary. I wouldn't describe him as an
idiot, but I think he could be quite possible described as dangerous.
I don't know much about Blair. I'll have to google him. I'm dismayed
that he (like Bush) drags his religion into the picture. Faith based
'anything' leads to conflict as history has shown.
I agree that "idiot" was the wrong term. I was thinking in the terms
of "idiot savant" where one has a lot of smarts in one area but is
completely stupid in another.
A bit of a worry.

Regards,

M
Mark Kent
2006-04-16 16:33:30 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
M <***@spamgourmet.com> espoused:
<snip>
Post by M
Lets face it there are some nasty despots around the World. I don't see any
western army queueing up so sort out that nasty little despot running
Zimbabwe.
Just wait until there's a western diamond shortage...

<snip>
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Harrisberger's Fourth Law of the Lab:
Experience is directly proportional to the
amount of equipment ruined.
Robert Newson
2006-04-16 20:29:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
<snip>
Post by M
Lets face it there are some nasty despots around the World. I don't see any
western army queueing up so sort out that nasty little despot running
Zimbabwe.
Just wait until there's a western diamond shortage...
Unfortunately, there are plenty of Diamonds, but the supply is kept in check
- it is only a man made[1] shortage to keep the price high...

[1] aka cartel...a legal one?
William Poaster
2006-04-17 15:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by M
Lets face it there are some nasty despots around the World. I don't see
any western army queueing up so sort out that nasty little despot
running Zimbabwe.
Just wait until there's a western diamond shortage...
<snip>
Funny how the British government of the time reacted against a *white*
Rhodesian regime which ran from 1965 to 1979, & who did *nothing* like
this present despot of Zimbabwe is doing to people of his *own* race.
--
SuSE 10.1 RC-1
KDE 3.5.1
Note:-
All posts from googlegroups.com are killfiled.
Mark Kent
2006-04-19 13:49:55 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by William Poaster
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by M
Lets face it there are some nasty despots around the World. I don't see
any western army queueing up so sort out that nasty little despot
running Zimbabwe.
Just wait until there's a western diamond shortage...
<snip>
Funny how the British government of the time reacted against a *white*
Rhodesian regime which ran from 1965 to 1979, & who did *nothing* like
this present despot of Zimbabwe is doing to people of his *own* race.
Interesting observation... HMG has made its displeasure with Zimbabwe
known, and even orchestrated its ejection from the Commonwealth...
what's disappointed me has been the response from RSA, which seems to be
essentially supporting Mugabe. HMG is left in a funny position here,
with RSA being the key economy in the area, but refusing to condemn
Zimbabwe. It's a terrible mess, and I'd love to see Mugabe outed.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Like punning, programming is a play on words.
William Poaster
2006-04-19 14:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by William Poaster
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by M
Lets face it there are some nasty despots around the World. I don't
see any western army queueing up so sort out that nasty little despot
running Zimbabwe.
Just wait until there's a western diamond shortage...
<snip>
Funny how the British government of the time reacted against a *white*
Rhodesian regime which ran from 1965 to 1979, & who did *nothing* like
this present despot of Zimbabwe is doing to people of his *own* race.
Interesting observation... HMG has made its displeasure with Zimbabwe
known, and even orchestrated its ejection from the Commonwealth...
True, but what I'm saying is, they don't appear to be doing *half* of what
the UK government of the time did against Smith's regime. Mugabe is
actually *allowed* to travel outside of Zimbabwe for certain things, but
Smith was *never* allowed to.
Post by Mark Kent
what's disappointed me has been the response from RSA, which seems to be
essentially supporting Mugabe.
Yes, that *is* disappointing, but not surprising. As a decent
multi-cultural society, I would have expected better from the RSA.

Remember Idi Amin? Look how many black African states supported him, & he
expelled 30 to 40,000 Indian & Pakistani businessmen & farmers etc so he
could turn Uganda into a "black man's country". This was mostly to blame
for the country's economic collapse, that & the corruption throughout
Amin's government. (He'd been involved in a gold smuggling racket with
Milton Obote, & actually turned on Obote accusing *him* of corruption!)
AFAIK not *one* independant African state condemned Amin's actions, &
Ghaddafi even supported him, *if* he would turn Uganda into an Islamic
state.
It wasn't sanctions or any action by the UK government that brought down
Amin in 1979, but Tanzania's armed forces. Amin had launched an attack on
Tanzania, trying to divert attention from Uganda's internal problems &
corrupt regime. Mugabe did something similar, though not attacking
neighbouring countries. He sent troops to fight in the Congo, costing him
a huge amount.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/611898.stm

The result of which:-
http://www.economist.com.na/2002/13sep/09-12-05.htm


Can you see a similar parallel emerging in Zimbabwe? Only
this time it's white farmers. Rhodesia was known as the "Bread Basket of
Africa", & this idiot has completely decimated his country to the point of
starvation. It makes me wonder what sort of rackets Mugabe is involved in,
& with whom....which makes me suspicious of why the present government of
RSA is not condemning him.
Post by Mark Kent
HMG is left in a funny position here, with RSA being the key economy in
the area, but refusing to condemn Zimbabwe. It's a terrible mess, and
I'd love to see Mugabe outed.
So would I, & many, many others.


On a lighter note, I understand that neighbouring Mozambique has
actually *welcomed* displaced farmers & offered them land & a startup
grant. :-)
--
WARNING! Do not drive your
vehicle after using Windows.
Frustration may be taken out
on other road users.
Mark Kent
2006-04-19 15:29:05 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by William Poaster
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by William Poaster
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by M
Lets face it there are some nasty despots around the World. I don't
see any western army queueing up so sort out that nasty little despot
running Zimbabwe.
Just wait until there's a western diamond shortage...
<snip>
Funny how the British government of the time reacted against a *white*
Rhodesian regime which ran from 1965 to 1979, & who did *nothing* like
this present despot of Zimbabwe is doing to people of his *own* race.
Interesting observation... HMG has made its displeasure with Zimbabwe
known, and even orchestrated its ejection from the Commonwealth...
True, but what I'm saying is, they don't appear to be doing *half* of what
the UK government of the time did against Smith's regime. Mugabe is
actually *allowed* to travel outside of Zimbabwe for certain things, but
Smith was *never* allowed to.
True. There was a lot of noise when Mugabe came to the EU for talks,
but you're right, there should be more done.
Post by William Poaster
Post by Mark Kent
what's disappointed me has been the response from RSA, which seems to be
essentially supporting Mugabe.
Yes, that *is* disappointing, but not surprising. As a decent
multi-cultural society, I would have expected better from the RSA.
Me too.
Post by William Poaster
Remember Idi Amin? Look how many black African states supported him, & he
expelled 30 to 40,000 Indian & Pakistani businessmen & farmers etc so he
could turn Uganda into a "black man's country". This was mostly to blame
for the country's economic collapse, that & the corruption throughout
Amin's government. (He'd been involved in a gold smuggling racket with
Milton Obote, & actually turned on Obote accusing *him* of corruption!)
Unfortunately, appealing to racism always seems to work. Amin was
amazingly bloodthirsty, arguably worse than Mugabe.
Post by William Poaster
AFAIK not *one* independant African state condemned Amin's actions, &
Ghaddafi even supported him, *if* he would turn Uganda into an Islamic
state.
It wasn't sanctions or any action by the UK government that brought down
Amin in 1979, but Tanzania's armed forces. Amin had launched an attack on
Tanzania, trying to divert attention from Uganda's internal problems &
corrupt regime.
Much like the Argentinian attack on the Falklands...
Post by William Poaster
Mugabe did something similar, though not attacking
neighbouring countries. He sent troops to fight in the Congo, costing him
a huge amount.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/611898.stm
The result of which:-
http://www.economist.com.na/2002/13sep/09-12-05.htm
Can you see a similar parallel emerging in Zimbabwe? Only
this time it's white farmers. Rhodesia was known as the "Bread Basket of
Africa", & this idiot has completely decimated his country to the point of
starvation. It makes me wonder what sort of rackets Mugabe is involved in,
& with whom....which makes me suspicious of why the present government of
RSA is not condemning him.
I think you're right to be suspicious. It's hard to understand what
kind of mentality would actively pursue the destruction of their
country's own economy - the only reasonable possibility is that their
personal reward makes it worthwhile.
Post by William Poaster
Post by Mark Kent
HMG is left in a funny position here, with RSA being the key economy in
the area, but refusing to condemn Zimbabwe. It's a terrible mess, and
I'd love to see Mugabe outed.
So would I, & many, many others.
On a lighter note, I understand that neighbouring Mozambique has
actually *welcomed* displaced farmers & offered them land & a startup
grant. :-)
Hey! Btw - it's the only Commonwealth country that is /not/ an
ex-colony!
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Like punning, programming is a play on words.
Lobo
2006-04-16 18:53:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 15:54:16 GMT, M
<snip>
Post by M
Post by Lobo
I agree that the Israelis know everything that was/is going on in
Iraq. If they thought the Iraqi's were reconstituting their nuclear
program they would have bombed them again long before the Americans
attacked. The same for WMD.
The US will end up with permanent bases in Iraq (they are now
constructing a massive embassy in Baghdad which will house up to 3,000
people). This works out great for Israel.
The Americans knew damn well how bad the Iraqi army was, both in 1991
and in 2003. They figured they could do a little "shock and awe" and
they would have a ready victory.
I totally agree. We all know this had more to do with both the US having a
strong presence in the region and 'Oil', (and possible unfinished business
when Bush senior was in the White House).
I read Blair's "Doctrine of the International Community" 1999. He
basically implied that the super powers have a moral imperative to
impose their will on other nations to protect their vital financial
interests in those countries. I can see he had his sights on Saddam by
this time.

What Blair failed to mention in his speech is that the UK as well as
the US were directly complicit in creating the current economic and
political conditions in the middle east. British and American oil
companies had been stripping the wealth from these countries for
decades.

Google "Operation Ajax"

"Operation Ajax was the first time the Central Intelligence Agency
orchestrated a plot to overthrow a democratically elected government.
The success of this operation, and its relatively low cost, encouraged
the CIA to successfully carry out a similar operation in Guatemala a
year later."

Blair also failed to mention US and European complicity in the
creation of Saddam in the first place. It was the US that supplied
Iraq with the precursors for WMD's to use against Iran and the Kurds.
They stood by and watched. Rumsfield was even shaking hands with
Saddam at this time.
Post by M
Lets face it there are some nasty despots around the World. I don't see any
western army queueing up so sort out that nasty little despot running
Zimbabwe.
Nothing of value there. Just brown people dying.
Move along... move along... nothing to see... nothing to see....
Post by M
Post by Lobo
Post by M
Post by Lobo
Unfortunately, even 1,000,000 demonstrators in the UK who knew better
couldn't dissuade their idiot prime minister, Tony Blair.
I watched a program all about Tony Blair, and what I didn't appreciate
(and probable you don't either) is that he doesn't leave his religion at
the church on sunday. When he gets it into his head that he thinks he is
right on a particular issue, it becomes a matter of 'faith' rather than
objectivity, which is actually quite scary. I wouldn't describe him as an
idiot, but I think he could be quite possible described as dangerous.
I don't know much about Blair. I'll have to google him. I'm dismayed
that he (like Bush) drags his religion into the picture. Faith based
'anything' leads to conflict as history has shown.
I agree that "idiot" was the wrong term. I was thinking in the terms
of "idiot savant" where one has a lot of smarts in one area but is
completely stupid in another.
A bit of a worry.
I suppose Blair knows now that Man will not forgive him so he is
relying on God. History will not judge him well. One does not fight
terror with terror. By the time of the Iraq takeover, Saddam was fully
controlled by the western powers and no threat to it's neighbours, let
alone the western powers.

But, the US wanted military bases to control the oil region. In 1991
they got a permanent one in Saudi Arabia (under false pretenses which
led to 9/11) and now they have Iraq (which will lead to ???).

This will end up as a bone stuck in the craw of the US and UK for the
next 20 years. The Americans are starting to choke on it. The UK and
Blair are next.

Now, if they can just keep the natives fighting amongst themselves....
Post by M
Regards,
M
John Bailo
2006-04-16 19:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
What Blair failed to mention in his speech is that the UK as well as
the US were directly complicit in creating the current economic and
political conditions in the middle east. British and American oil
companies had been stripping the wealth from these countries for
decades.
Stripping?

I guess that explains the beeline of all the Lexus sedans that left
Kuwait when Saddam invaded.
Lobo
2006-04-16 20:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
Post by Lobo
What Blair failed to mention in his speech is that the UK as well as
the US were directly complicit in creating the current economic and
political conditions in the middle east. British and American oil
companies had been stripping the wealth from these countries for
decades.
Stripping?
I guess that explains the beeline of all the Lexus sedans that left
Kuwait when Saddam invaded.
If you read above, I stated "had been stripping". The nationalization
of the Anglo-American oil companies started in the 1960's.

Kuwait was of strategic importance in shipping oil out of Iraq and
Iran and has received foreign military support since the 1920's.

It is a small country with 3rd or 4th total world oil reserves and
population about 1 million (there is another 1.5 million non-nationals
who do most of the labour) so this country is well off. The oil wealth
has been spread around more than other states in the region due to
it's small population. It is still controlled by a ruling family.
Although there is voting, it's not exactly what we would call a
democracy.
John Bailo
2006-04-16 22:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
If you read above, I stated "had been stripping". The nationalization
of the Anglo-American oil companies started in the 1960's.
What you don't mention is that the ability of the Middle East to grow
and participate in today's technological society is entirely due to the
largesse of money that flows into it from the American consumer.
Lobo
2006-04-17 01:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
Post by Lobo
If you read above, I stated "had been stripping". The nationalization
of the Anglo-American oil companies started in the 1960's.
What you don't mention is that the ability of the Middle East to grow
and participate in today's technological society is entirely due to the
largesse of money that flows into it from the American consumer.
Which mainly goes to the relative few holding power in many countries
such as the royal family in Saudi Arabia.
John Bailo
2006-04-17 03:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
Post by John Bailo
Post by Lobo
If you read above, I stated "had been stripping". The nationalization
of the Anglo-American oil companies started in the 1960's.
What you don't mention is that the ability of the Middle East to grow
and participate in today's technological society is entirely due to the
largesse of money that flows into it from the American consumer.
Which mainly goes to the relative few holding power in many countries
such as the royal family in Saudi Arabia.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saud/themes/reform.html

"…Prince Bandar said to us that this perhaps is the only country in the
world where the government is the avant-garde and the people are far
behind. You agree?

Well, the government is leading the reform. This is absolutely true. And
I think this is a reasonable thing to do. The government had the
wherewithal to start the reform process with the advent of oil. They
opened schools; they opened hospital[s]; they opened many of the
services that brought modern life to citizens in Saudi Arabia for the
first time. Remember, this is a country [where] in my lifetime, my
mother lost six children because of inavailability of medication and
hospital[s]."
Lobo
2006-04-17 05:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
Post by Lobo
Post by John Bailo
Post by Lobo
If you read above, I stated "had been stripping". The nationalization
of the Anglo-American oil companies started in the 1960's.
What you don't mention is that the ability of the Middle East to grow
and participate in today's technological society is entirely due to the
largesse of money that flows into it from the American consumer.
Which mainly goes to the relative few holding power in many countries
such as the royal family in Saudi Arabia.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saud/themes/reform.html
"…Prince Bandar said to us that this perhaps is the only country in the
world where the government is the avant-garde and the people are far
behind. You agree?
Well, the government is leading the reform. This is absolutely true. And
I think this is a reasonable thing to do. The government had the
wherewithal to start the reform process with the advent of oil. They
opened schools; they opened hospital[s]; they opened many of the
services that brought modern life to citizens in Saudi Arabia for the
first time. Remember, this is a country [where] in my lifetime, my
mother lost six children because of inavailability of medication and
hospital[s]."
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2003/issue3/jv7n3a2.html

SAUDI ARABIA: A BRIEF GUIDE TO ITS POLITICS AND PROBLEMS
....
Economic challenges and Performance

As the princes have grown richer, the people of Saudi Arabia have
grown poorer. While gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average of
1.25 percent per year between 1981 and 2001, from $155.1 billion in
1981 to $186.5 billion in 2001, the average GDP per capita shrunk
roughly 2.5 percent per year.(2) In fact, the per capita GDP was worse
in 1999 than it was in 1965 before the massive rise in the price of
oil.(3) Even the Saudi press has noted how, in nominal terms, GDP per
capita went from $10,330 in 1989 to $7,743 in 2001.(4)
....

Chart II: Royal Members of the Cabinet

Prince Bandar bin Sultan is not just any other ambassador. He is
responsible for maintaining the vast and intricate relations between
his country and United States at the highest levels. His access to
high-ranking U.S. officials has no equal in Washington. Recent
discussion about succession in Saudi Arabia has focused on Prince
Bandar being elevated to a high position in Riyadh should the
leadership decide to skip over his father, Prince Sultan, as the next
crown prince if Abdallah were to become king. The promotion of Prince
Bandar is said to compensate his father (one of the wealthiest men in
Saudi Arabia. His wealth is derived from commissions on vast military
procurements).(27) The ambassador to the United Kingdom, Prince Turki,
is the son of the late King Faisal, and thus the brother of Turki
al-Faisal, the Saudi Ambassador to the U.K. Two other princes occupy
the two most senior civil service posts in the ministry of foreign
affairs, including that of the first secretary-general and the
director general of inspection, and both are nephews of the king.
....

Royal Donations to Address Social and Economic Problems

Having a patriarchal and proprietary view of the country--and
drawing scant distinction between the private and the public
domain--the royal oligarchy looks upon the Saudi people as subjects
merely deserving of royal charity rather than as the true owners of
the country. Thus, instead of addressing social problems as a public
obligation requiring state action, the royal oligarchy in Saudi Arabia
individualizes the solutions by making royal grants designed to
enhance the gratitude and the loyalty of the citizenry to their
patrons. The absence of an income tax and the reliance on zakat
enhances this personalized and individualized form of social policy.
....
John Bailo
2006-04-17 07:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
As the princes have grown richer, the people of Saudi Arabia have
grown poorer. While gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average of
1.25 percent per year between 1981 and 2001, from $155.1 billion in
1981 to $186.5 billion in 2001, the average GDP per capita shrunk
roughly 2.5 percent per year.(2)
That's an incredibly poor performance for 20 years during which America and
other countries experienced some of the greatest growth in their history!
Post by Lobo
In fact, the per capita GDP was worse
in 1999 than it was in 1965 before the massive rise in the price of
oil.(3) Even the Saudi press has noted how, in nominal terms, GDP per
capita went from $10,330 in 1989 to $7,743 in 2001.(4)
Of course, during that time, the price of oil was on a long term decline.
Remember in 1998/99 the price of a barrel of oil was something like $14
dollars. Oil is now $70, or more than 5 times that! And it's funding
growth among the working in Venezuela, Canada and the Middle East.
Post by Lobo
Prince Bandar bin Sultan is not just any other ambassador. He is
responsible for maintaining the vast and intricate relations between
his country and United States at the highest levels. His access to
high-ranking U.S. officials has no equal in Washington.
And you're saying we shouldn't insure access to oil which is critically
important to our society?
Post by Lobo
Having a patriarchal and proprietary view of the country--and
drawing scant distinction between the private and the public
domain--the royal oligarchy looks upon the Saudi people as subjects
merely deserving of royal charity rather than as the true owners of
the country.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that says that the rich have to help
the poor.

Nothing.
--
Texeme Textcasting powers
http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Lobo
2006-04-17 16:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
Post by Lobo
As the princes have grown richer, the people of Saudi Arabia have
grown poorer. While gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average of
1.25 percent per year between 1981 and 2001, from $155.1 billion in
1981 to $186.5 billion in 2001, the average GDP per capita shrunk
roughly 2.5 percent per year.(2)
That's an incredibly poor performance for 20 years during which America and
other countries experienced some of the greatest growth in their history!
Read a history of the Middle East starting in 1919. You will
understand how the countries were originally setup by the western
powers to maximize the west's profits.

Do the same for the African nations.
Post by John Bailo
Post by Lobo
In fact, the per capita GDP was worse
in 1999 than it was in 1965 before the massive rise in the price of
oil.(3) Even the Saudi press has noted how, in nominal terms, GDP per
capita went from $10,330 in 1989 to $7,743 in 2001.(4)
Of course, during that time, the price of oil was on a long term decline.
Remember in 1998/99 the price of a barrel of oil was something like $14
dollars. Oil is now $70, or more than 5 times that! And it's funding
growth among the working in Venezuela, Canada and the Middle East.
Yes. It is funding the working poor in Venezuela (and Canada). But,
this was done in the face of very stiff resistance in Venezuela with
help from the American administration using CIA dirty tricks. If it
wasn't for the independent press in other countries (such as Canada),
Chavez would be dead or have been 'rendered' by the US.

Have a look at how the US government used the American media to
facilitate a coup in Venezuela. There's very interesting clips of the
White House spokesman and Colin Powell as well as members of the US
senate.

http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/379566/Chavez_Inside_the_Coup_2003_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised_The_TV_Cap

BTW, this aired a number of times on Canadian TV. I've yet to see it
on American TV.

Chavez was elected by over 80% of the people. Venezuela is a full
democracy. So tell your president to keep his dirty paws off the
country. With the power of the internet and cell phones, the world is
watching.
Post by John Bailo
Post by Lobo
Prince Bandar bin Sultan is not just any other ambassador. He is
responsible for maintaining the vast and intricate relations between
his country and United States at the highest levels. His access to
high-ranking U.S. officials has no equal in Washington.
And you're saying we shouldn't insure access to oil which is critically
important to our society?
Post by Lobo
Having a patriarchal and proprietary view of the country--and
drawing scant distinction between the private and the public
domain--the royal oligarchy looks upon the Saudi people as subjects
merely deserving of royal charity rather than as the true owners of
the country.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that says that the rich have to help
the poor.
Nothing.
You are right.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that says people should have
clean water. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says people
should have food. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says
people should have medical care. There is nothing in the US
Constitution that says people should have shelter.

The SPCA gives more rights to pets (except the one that allows them to
pick up and detain individuals for an extended period without charge).

The US Constitution doesn't hold a candle to this:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I'm dismayed to see so many of the basic rights of the American people
being slowly eroded at this time in the name of 'security'.
M
2006-04-17 17:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Lobo wrote:

<snip>
Post by Lobo
I'm dismayed to see so many of the basic rights of the American people
being slowly eroded at this time in the name of 'security'.
It's happening here in the UK too, police are given more powers, able to
detain people for longer length of time etc etc.

They are also trying their level best to force people to carry identity
cards as well. My own personal opinion is that make the lives easier for
those bringing in illegals (and other criminals etc) once they have figured
out how to fake them, and I don't expect that to take too long.

After the Dunblane Massacre:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_Massacre

they banned licenced firearms holders from having/owning hand guns, you only
have to look at the level of crime involving hand guns in Nottingham,
Birmingham and Manchester to see what a wounder success that wasn't.

Ohh isn't there a law now that stops you taking the p*** out of religion
too. Can't remember if they managed to get that one through the house of
commons.

Blair won't be happy until he has turned us into a police state.

Regards,

M
Jim
2006-04-17 19:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by M
<snip>
Post by Lobo
I'm dismayed to see so many of the basic rights of the American people
being slowly eroded at this time in the name of 'security'.
It's happening here in the UK too, police are given more powers, able to
detain people for longer length of time etc etc.
They are also trying their level best to force people to carry identity
cards as well. My own personal opinion is that make the lives easier for
those bringing in illegals (and other criminals etc) once they have figured
out how to fake them, and I don't expect that to take too long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_Massacre
they banned licenced firearms holders from having/owning hand guns, you only
have to look at the level of crime involving hand guns in Nottingham,
Birmingham and Manchester to see what a wounder success that wasn't.
The ban was amended onto the Firearms Act, to include cartridge air
weapons (auch as Brocock) which can be pumped up to be more powerful
than a powder charge of the same calibre. Automatic weapons are also
banned, unless licensed by the Home Office (so unless you're SO19, the
armed branch of the Metropolitan Police, or you're licensed with an FAC
to collect provably and permanently deactivated weapons, you're SOL).
The maximum muzzle energy of air weapons was reduced to 6fpe for pistols
(air weapons with barrels of less than 8" length) and 12fpe for rifles.
All centrefire weapons are now banned. Rimfire weapons, of any
description, now require an FAC. This includes nailguns of any
description (even airpowered!), open-muzzle rivet guns, cattle stunners,
and power staplers(!). The list of banned weapons now also includes
grenade/rocket launchers and mortars, pepper sprays, CS gas, weaponised
chemicals, flick sticks, rubber shotgun slugs, any fixed blade longer
than 3", live or spent ammunition or cartridges for any of the
prohibited calibres (with the exception of licensed ammunition
collectors who carry firearms certificates reflecting this fact - today
there are exactly five such licenses in issue, and I know every one of
the holders personally), and taser guns. Violation of the Firearms Act
now carries a mandatory five-year prison sentence /on top of and
consecutive to/ any other charges brought.

Now, being a Nottingham resident, I can't understand this thing people
seem to have in calling the place the "Gun capital of Europe". I've seen
a few, yes, but most of them were hanging round the necks and buckled
round the waists of SO19 officers (I still want to find out how a guy
who has a full clip of 9mm softpoint in a secure pouch on his belt
manages to lose only the /clip/!). A few were in my airgun club. In
fact, I have a goodly few people in my airgun club right now, and they
don't seem to be at all bothered by people as they transport their
weapons through town. And yes, we do. Quite openly (though in a secure
case or bag, or in the case of pistols, shoulder holsters). Nobody bats
an eye.

As a sidenote, how many offences would you estimate as to have been
commited by a registered gun owner using his own weapon? Are there
statistics for this?
Post by M
Ohh isn't there a law now that stops you taking the p*** out of religion
too. Can't remember if they managed to get that one through the house of
commons.
Yes, that's under the emergency anti-terror amendments that came in
recently, for which the Government bypassed the Lords' to get it
enacted. The sheet would read "Incitement to cause religious hatred" and
would be treated under, among other acts, the Riot Act and the new
Prevention of Terrorism Acts/amendments.
Post by M
Blair won't be happy until he has turned us into a police state.
Oh, that happened about a decade and a half ago...
Post by M
Regards,
M
John A. Bailo
2006-04-17 17:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
Read a history of the Middle East starting in 1919. You will
understand how the countries were originally setup by the western
powers to maximize the west's profits.
Do the same for the African nations.
And did you see Lawrence of Arabia? There have also been equal
attempts to work with locals and provide reform, encourage local
control, etc -- but intertribal warfare and lack of interest prevented that.

Bottom line, England did the same thing to colonial America, and look
where we are now.
Post by Lobo
Have a look at how the US government used the American media to
facilitate a coup in Venezuela. There's very interesting clips of the
Well, we didn't do a very good job of it did we? Now, Allende, there
was a coup!
Post by Lobo
There is nothing in the US Constitution that says people should have
clean water. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says people
should have food. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says
people should have medical care. There is nothing in the US
Constitution that says people should have shelter.
The SPCA gives more rights to pets (except the one that allows them to
pick up and detain individuals for an extended period without charge).
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Interesting:

"Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for
the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,
clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and
the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness,
disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in
circumstances beyond his control."
Post by Lobo
I'm dismayed to see so many of the basic rights of the American people
being slowly eroded at this time in the name of 'security'.
You know what I keep saying...there's nothing stopping all the Libs in
the world from getting all their cash together and buying Exxon. They
can then do with the profits whatever they want...including giving it
all away to anyone they want or exerting as much control over government
as any of the large institutions that they rail about.

In fact, they can simply invest in a large portion of its stock and take
the capital gains and give it away.
Lobo
2006-04-17 19:07:55 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:14:32 -0700, "John A. Bailo"
Post by John A. Bailo
Post by Lobo
Read a history of the Middle East starting in 1919. You will
understand how the countries were originally setup by the western
powers to maximize the west's profits.
Do the same for the African nations.
And did you see Lawrence of Arabia? There have also been equal
attempts to work with locals and provide reform, encourage local
control, etc -- but intertribal warfare and lack of interest prevented that.
Bottom line, England did the same thing to colonial America, and look
where we are now.
Post by Lobo
Have a look at how the US government used the American media to
facilitate a coup in Venezuela. There's very interesting clips of the
Well, we didn't do a very good job of it did we? Now, Allende, there
was a coup!
Post by Lobo
There is nothing in the US Constitution that says people should have
clean water. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says people
should have food. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says
people should have medical care. There is nothing in the US
Constitution that says people should have shelter.
The SPCA gives more rights to pets (except the one that allows them to
pick up and detain individuals for an extended period without charge).
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
"Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for
the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,
clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and
the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness,
disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in
circumstances beyond his control."
Post by Lobo
I'm dismayed to see so many of the basic rights of the American people
being slowly eroded at this time in the name of 'security'.
You know what I keep saying...there's nothing stopping all the Libs in
the world from getting all their cash together and buying Exxon. They
can then do with the profits whatever they want...including giving it
all away to anyone they want or exerting as much control over government
as any of the large institutions that they rail about.
In fact, they can simply invest in a large portion of its stock and take
the capital gains and give it away.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm#Back83

</quote>

A COMPARISON OF THE U.S. TO OTHER RICH NATIONS

The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States
with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially
revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic
than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their
corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are
higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their
labor unions stronger.

And what may depress many conservatives is that these nations beat us
on statistic after statistic after statistic.

Table of Contents:

Standard of Living
Income Inequality
Health Care
Sex
Crime
Pollution
Work and Leisure Time
Democracy
Conclusion
....

CONCLUSION

These statistics are shattering to those who believe that greater
individualism and less government somehow produce better societies.
And they should serve as a wake-up call to every American that this
country is headed in the wrong direction.

These statistics evoke two common responses from conservatives and
libertarians. The most natural response is to blame them on 40 years
of Democratic government. This, however, is a giant non sequitur. The
very point of this list is that nations with far more liberal
governments than ours have created better societies, even with
somewhat less productivity. If liberalism were really harmful to a
nation's standard of living, then these nations should be doing worse,
not better.

Moreover, as mentioned earlier, America's truly liberal government was
replaced in the mid-70s by the corporate special interest system,
which introduced a conservative agenda of tax cuts for the rich and
massive deregulation of business. Corporate lobbyists, and not the
interchangeable "Republicrats," have influenced legislation over the
past 20 years.
<quote>

http://www.forbes.com/facesinthenews/2005/04/13/0413autofacescan10.html

</quote>
Flush Exxon Mobil Gave CEO Raymond $38M Package In 2004

Upset by high fuel prices? Don't bother phoning Lee R. Raymond with
your sob story. He's the chief executive of Exxon Mobil (nyse: XOM -
news - people ), which enjoyed a record-breaking year in 2004, no
small thanks to those sky-high prices. The oil leviathan earned $25.33
billion in 2004, which an Associated Press report calls the highest
profit ever for a U.S. company, after excluding earnings inflated by
the sale of a business. Exxon's 2004 revenue was also a company best:
$298.03 billion.
<quote>

Next time you're at the pump, dig deep my friend. Exxon is a giant
multinational that recognizes no flag but it's own.

As CNN's Lou Dobbs likes to say "There's a war on the middle class in
America." Here you will find a hint of why the multinationals get
better "productivity" - simply pay lower worker wages and charge more.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/book.html
<quote>
Exporting America: Why Corporate Greed is Shipping American Jobs
Overseas

The shipment of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets threatens
not only millions of workers and their families, but also the American
way of life. With the pay of corporate CEOs at historical highs and
job creation at the lowest level since the Depression, corporate
raiders are breaking down our borders in search of the lowest-price
labor available anywhere in the world. For the first time in history,
corporations are laying off Americans from well-paying jobs and
replacing them with low-paid foreign workers. A recent study revealed
that 14 million American jobs are now at risk of being outsourced
overseas.

Make no mistake, Corporate America isn't doing all this alone: Big
business and Washington are in cahoots, trading our nation's
livelihood for short-term gain and Lou Dobbs's bold new book takes
dead aim. A stirring call to arms and an invaluable prescriptive guide
to dealing with the issue, EXPORTING AMERICA tells readers what they
can do to save not only their own jobs, but the American dream.
<quote>
Sinister Midget
2006-04-17 19:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm#Back83
</quote>
A COMPARISON OF THE U.S. TO OTHER RICH NATIONS
The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States
with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially
revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic
than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their
corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are
higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their
labor unions stronger.
And what may depress many conservatives is that these nations beat us
on statistic after statistic after statistic.
Why are hordes of people lining up to move to the US? Why do hordes of
people try to sneak into the US?

Every nation has similar problems. (Well, almost any nation.) But I
can't locate anything that shows anyone even approaching the numbers
the US gets.

I'll be glad to shown that I'm wrong.
--
Frontpage: Better than sticking a red hot poker in your eye.
Lobo
2006-04-17 21:37:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:27:16 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm#Back83
</quote>
A COMPARISON OF THE U.S. TO OTHER RICH NATIONS
The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States
with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially
revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic
than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their
corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are
higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their
labor unions stronger.
And what may depress many conservatives is that these nations beat us
on statistic after statistic after statistic.
Why are hordes of people lining up to move to the US? Why do hordes of
people try to sneak into the US?
Every nation has similar problems. (Well, almost any nation.) But I
can't locate anything that shows anyone even approaching the numbers
the US gets.
I'll be glad to shown that I'm wrong.
You are not wrong. There is great incentive to earn $5.15/hr. (US
minimum wage - actually higher in individual states) if you are only
earning $.50/hr. or don't even have a job in Mexico or other Latin
American countries.

http://www.alternet.org/story/34690/
</quote>
A Rising Tide in Mexico
By Chuck Collins, AlterNet. Posted April 13, 2006.

The next president of Mexico could be a left populist who puts the
needs of ordinary Mexicans ahead of international corporate investors
-- if the U.S. refrains from meddling.
....
From the outside, Mexico appears to have had a decade of stability.
But the reality is that poverty and insecurity are rising. Real wages
have plummeted, and many communities in rural Mexico are now ghost
towns after being devastated by the loss of 2 million agricultural
jobs. Mexican farmers, after NAFTA, are unable to compete with the
imports flowing in from subsidized U.S. farmers, particularly in corn.
<quote>

There are millions of jobs, paying $10-$15/hr., for landscapers,
plumbers, construction workers, as well as in the service industry.
(Some even get to drive big fancy tractors, harvesting corn.)

This is a bonanza for these immigrant workers. It is also a bonanza
for the companies that hire these people. Not so good for the working
American though.

There is a reason that the US borders are wide open to immigrants. If
you need some plumbing done, would you pay $35/hr if you can get it
for $15/hr? If you need factory workers, would you pay $15/hr or
$7.50/hr? The above doesn't even take into consideration the fact that
with illegals, companies don't even have to pay all those "extras"
that increase his cost of labour.

The American taxpayer has to pick up the tab for schooling and health
care. Of course, the latest Bush tax cuts offsets these effects
somewhat for those in that bracket. They also don't feel the pinch
because their kids don't go to public schools or state hospitals
anyway.

I think highly of capitalism where an individual owns the means of
production and there is free *and* fair trade. But what I am seeing,
especially in the US, is a form of corporate socialism where companies
are in bed with the state. This path can easily lead to fascism.
M
2006-04-17 21:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:27:16 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm#Back83
</quote>
A COMPARISON OF THE U.S. TO OTHER RICH NATIONS
The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States
with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially
revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic
than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their
corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are
higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their
labor unions stronger.
And what may depress many conservatives is that these nations beat us
on statistic after statistic after statistic.
Why are hordes of people lining up to move to the US? Why do hordes of
people try to sneak into the US?
Every nation has similar problems. (Well, almost any nation.) But I
can't locate anything that shows anyone even approaching the numbers
the US gets.
I'll be glad to shown that I'm wrong.
You are not wrong. There is great incentive to earn $5.15/hr. (US
minimum wage - actually higher in individual states) if you are only
earning $.50/hr. or don't even have a job in Mexico or other Latin
American countries.
http://www.alternet.org/story/34690/
</quote>
A Rising Tide in Mexico
By Chuck Collins, AlterNet. Posted April 13, 2006.
The next president of Mexico could be a left populist who puts the
needs of ordinary Mexicans ahead of international corporate investors
-- if the U.S. refrains from meddling.
....
From the outside, Mexico appears to have had a decade of stability.
But the reality is that poverty and insecurity are rising. Real wages
have plummeted, and many communities in rural Mexico are now ghost
towns after being devastated by the loss of 2 million agricultural
jobs. Mexican farmers, after NAFTA, are unable to compete with the
imports flowing in from subsidized U.S. farmers, particularly in corn.
<quote>
There are millions of jobs, paying $10-$15/hr., for landscapers,
plumbers, construction workers, as well as in the service industry.
(Some even get to drive big fancy tractors, harvesting corn.)
This is a bonanza for these immigrant workers. It is also a bonanza
for the companies that hire these people. Not so good for the working
American though.
There is a reason that the US borders are wide open to immigrants. If
you need some plumbing done, would you pay $35/hr if you can get it
for $15/hr? If you need factory workers, would you pay $15/hr or
$7.50/hr? The above doesn't even take into consideration the fact that
with illegals, companies don't even have to pay all those "extras"
that increase his cost of labour.
UK government does that all the time with NHS (National Health Service)
workers.
Post by Lobo
The American taxpayer has to pick up the tab for schooling and health
care. Of course, the latest Bush tax cuts offsets these effects
somewhat for those in that bracket. They also don't feel the pinch
because their kids don't go to public schools or state hospitals
anyway.
I think highly of capitalism where an individual owns the means of
production and there is free *and* fair trade. But what I am seeing,
especially in the US, is a form of corporate socialism where companies
are in bed with the state. This path can easily lead to fascism.
Sinister Midget
2006-04-18 06:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:27:16 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm#Back83
</quote>
A COMPARISON OF THE U.S. TO OTHER RICH NATIONS
The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States
with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially
revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic
than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their
corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are
higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their
labor unions stronger.
And what may depress many conservatives is that these nations beat us
on statistic after statistic after statistic.
Why are hordes of people lining up to move to the US? Why do hordes of
people try to sneak into the US?
Every nation has similar problems. (Well, almost any nation.) But I
can't locate anything that shows anyone even approaching the numbers
the US gets.
I'll be glad to shown that I'm wrong.
You are not wrong. There is great incentive to earn $5.15/hr. (US
minimum wage - actually higher in individual states) if you are only
earning $.50/hr. or don't even have a job in Mexico or other Latin
American countries.
But if you're earning $0.50/hour in one location, then you move to
another location making $5.15/hr, there's a huge offset in cost of
living. There might be a small gain overall, and there might not be.
But it hardly seems worth risking life, limb, rape, murder and
everything else to only be a tiny bit better off.

For those who are illegally resident, it's even worse. They have to
stay under the radar to avoid being caught. That leads to all sorts of
forms of exploitation, threats and fear.

There are plenty of other places where people would be better off and
not be living in fear forever.
Post by Lobo
http://www.alternet.org/story/34690/
</quote>
A Rising Tide in Mexico
By Chuck Collins, AlterNet. Posted April 13, 2006.
The next president of Mexico could be a left populist who puts the
needs of ordinary Mexicans ahead of international corporate investors
-- if the U.S. refrains from meddling.
....
From the outside, Mexico appears to have had a decade of stability.
But the reality is that poverty and insecurity are rising. Real wages
have plummeted, and many communities in rural Mexico are now ghost
towns after being devastated by the loss of 2 million agricultural
jobs. Mexican farmers, after NAFTA, are unable to compete with the
imports flowing in from subsidized U.S. farmers, particularly in corn.
<quote>
At the same time a fair number of manufacturing jobs have moved south
of the border. Not as many as the union thugs would have us believe,
but enough that many of those destitute agricultural workers should be
employed for as good or better income.

I sure see a lot of fruits and vegetables available in a couple of the
chain groceries here that aren't native to the US, too. They're coming
from someplace. Since they're particularly popular with a lot of the
Mexican and Latin American people, my guess is they aren't coming from
India or Canada. I could be wrong I suppose.
Post by Lobo
There are millions of jobs, paying $10-$15/hr., for landscapers,
plumbers, construction workers, as well as in the service industry.
(Some even get to drive big fancy tractors, harvesting corn.)
These are the so-called jobs that Americans (we are told) won't do. But
I guess thos same Americans are OK with $7/hour working in McDoodoo's
or parking cars for tips.
Post by Lobo
This is a bonanza for these immigrant workers. It is also a bonanza
for the companies that hire these people. Not so good for the working
American though.
The bonanza for the companies hiring is the key. They can get away with
paying little or nothing for benefits. In worst cases, they don't
withhold taxes or anything else. _THAT'S_ the industry that needs to be
stopped.
Post by Lobo
There is a reason that the US borders are wide open to immigrants. If
you need some plumbing done, would you pay $35/hr if you can get it
for $15/hr? If you need factory workers, would you pay $15/hr or
$7.50/hr? The above doesn't even take into consideration the fact that
with illegals, companies don't even have to pay all those "extras"
that increase his cost of labour.
That doesn't explain _why_ they're open, only the effect of their
_being_ open.

They're open because the pols are too gutless to do anything about it.
So every 20 years we give citizenship to people who came illegally,
make new laws that (we are told) will prevent it from ever happening
again, then wait until 20 years later so we can do it another time.

I'm with Charles Krauthammer on this. We should legalize everybody
here. 100% of them. No exceptions except for a few classes of criminal
and people who are a threat (including gang members and leaders, people
wiht terrorist connections, etc). But, something else has to happen
first.

Build a wall. It can be done, no matter what the naysayers claim. Build
it and patrol it. If one wall isn't enough, build 2 and put the patrols
in between. Put cameras, patrol dogs, towers, whatever it takes. We
stop as close to 100% of the illegal entry as possible along the
border.

A few years later, maybe 2 or 3, we talk about integrating 100% of
those already here.

Absorbing illegal aliens isn't a very palatable answer to most people.
But a majority could be convinced only if they really believe this is
the last time we need to go through this.

We can talk about guest worker programs, increasing the level of
immigration and anything else. But it's not going to be a seller to
most people if they think it's all just an excuse to do nothing.

Those who want to compare to the Belin wall should remember that _it_
was designed to keep people in.
Post by Lobo
The American taxpayer has to pick up the tab for schooling and health
care. Of course, the latest Bush tax cuts offsets these effects
somewhat for those in that bracket. They also don't feel the pinch
because their kids don't go to public schools or state hospitals
anyway.
What bracket is that? I got a tax cut. I'm not rich. Not even close.
And I don't make anywhere near the upper levels of income.

My kid is going to parochial school. I decided to make it work because
public schools have been destroyed in a lot of places. Even moreso in
this area. It's tough going. But we're committed to doing it. The
lovely and gracious Mrs. Midget is back in school, too, so she can
eventually go back to work and make enough to help this work.

The tax cuts didn't make this possible. The tax cuts barely made a
dent. But the tax cuts gave a slight bit of wiggle room to get us
moving in the right direction. What made it possible was our deciding
to do it. Even if it requires doubling the workload. If the missus
doesn't get what we hope, it may take that just to get him through
school and ino college.

I still pay the same taxes for the lousy schools we don't even use. I'm
not bitching about the principle of it. But I wouldn't mind if that
part changed.

My gripe is that the schools here aren't even state certified any more,
and I _still_ pay more and more each year for crappy results. If they
improved or at least stayed the same (and were accredited) I'd not be
so opposed to them. But my boy still wouldn't set foot in them.
Post by Lobo
I think highly of capitalism where an individual owns the means of
production and there is free *and* fair trade. But what I am seeing,
especially in the US, is a form of corporate socialism where companies
are in bed with the state. This path can easily lead to fascism.
I don't totally disagree with that. What I see though, an area that
many like to deny, it's across the board. Politicians of every stripe
are involved, almost at the same level. The people that buy them go by
differing names, but they're just as bad on both sides.

For the record, I don't believe every politician is on the take. But
I'm not sure I could accurately name both of the ones that aren't.

As for the individual owning the means of production, that's a fairly
inefficient way of doing things for large scale products. Being part
owner among a group might be useful. Some businesses are like that
already. Being sole owner of something small could work in most cases
and fail in others.

I'm not sure the US is the only one involved in corporate socialism.
Perhaps you mean something different than what that term brings to my
mind.
--
Frontpage: Better than sticking a red hot poker in your eye.
Lobo
2006-04-18 16:35:53 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:33:15 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:27:16 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm#Back83
</quote>
A COMPARISON OF THE U.S. TO OTHER RICH NATIONS
The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States
with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially
revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic
than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their
corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are
higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their
labor unions stronger.
And what may depress many conservatives is that these nations beat us
on statistic after statistic after statistic.
Why are hordes of people lining up to move to the US? Why do hordes of
people try to sneak into the US?
Every nation has similar problems. (Well, almost any nation.) But I
can't locate anything that shows anyone even approaching the numbers
the US gets.
I'll be glad to shown that I'm wrong.
You are not wrong. There is great incentive to earn $5.15/hr. (US
minimum wage - actually higher in individual states) if you are only
earning $.50/hr. or don't even have a job in Mexico or other Latin
American countries.
But if you're earning $0.50/hour in one location, then you move to
another location making $5.15/hr, there's a huge offset in cost of
living. There might be a small gain overall, and there might not be.
But it hardly seems worth risking life, limb, rape, murder and
everything else to only be a tiny bit better off.
They are more than a tiny bit better off. There are jobs which pay
upwards of 20 - 30 times what they can earn at home.
Post by Sinister Midget
For those who are illegally resident, it's even worse. They have to
stay under the radar to avoid being caught. That leads to all sorts of
forms of exploitation, threats and fear.
Illegals in the US (once they're safely across the border) lead open
lives. The ones w/o regular jobs wait in designated areas in towns and
cities across America to be picked up for temp jobs. Those with full
time jobs simply go about their business, buy houses and cars and even
do banking.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/news/economy/illegal_immigrants/
</quote>
Banks are seeing an untapped resource in providing home loans to
undocumented U.S. residents
...
"Banks are counting on the fact that we do a lousy job with interior
enforcement," said Celent's Grealish. "Once you're in the country and
you haven't done anything wrong, the chances of being deported are
very slim. Banks are banking on that."
<quote>

Millions openly marched in the streets several weeks ago across the US
demanding citizenship.
Post by Sinister Midget
There are plenty of other places where people would be better off and
not be living in fear forever.
The days of living in fear and working in US sweatshops is over.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
http://www.alternet.org/story/34690/
</quote>
A Rising Tide in Mexico
By Chuck Collins, AlterNet. Posted April 13, 2006.
The next president of Mexico could be a left populist who puts the
needs of ordinary Mexicans ahead of international corporate investors
-- if the U.S. refrains from meddling.
....
From the outside, Mexico appears to have had a decade of stability.
But the reality is that poverty and insecurity are rising. Real wages
have plummeted, and many communities in rural Mexico are now ghost
towns after being devastated by the loss of 2 million agricultural
jobs. Mexican farmers, after NAFTA, are unable to compete with the
imports flowing in from subsidized U.S. farmers, particularly in corn.
<quote>
At the same time a fair number of manufacturing jobs have moved south
of the border. Not as many as the union thugs would have us believe,
but enough that many of those destitute agricultural workers should be
employed for as good or better income.
Many of the new factories are highly automated and didn't supply as
many jobs as was touted. Another factor is that many of the Mexican
jobs subsequently went to countries that paid even less for labour.
Post by Sinister Midget
I sure see a lot of fruits and vegetables available in a couple of the
chain groceries here that aren't native to the US, too. They're coming
from someplace. Since they're particularly popular with a lot of the
Mexican and Latin American people, my guess is they aren't coming from
India or Canada. I could be wrong I suppose.
Yes. There are still many jobs in that sector, but not enough. The
Mexican farm workers are now being displaced by other countries which
can produce for less.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
There are millions of jobs, paying $10-$15/hr., for landscapers,
plumbers, construction workers, as well as in the service industry.
(Some even get to drive big fancy tractors, harvesting corn.)
These are the so-called jobs that Americans (we are told) won't do. But
I guess thos same Americans are OK with $7/hour working in McDoodoo's
or parking cars for tips.
That is not the only jobs the immigrants take. They are taking a lot
of jobs in the construction industry which is driving the wages down.
I also think the statement by the American admin that there are jobs
Americans won't take is a pile of BS. The only reason these jobs are
by-passed is because of very low pay. Working wages have gone down in
real terms in the last 10-15 years, mainly due to oversupply of
labour.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
This is a bonanza for these immigrant workers. It is also a bonanza
for the companies that hire these people. Not so good for the working
American though.
The bonanza for the companies hiring is the key. They can get away with
paying little or nothing for benefits. In worst cases, they don't
withhold taxes or anything else. _THAT'S_ the industry that needs to be
stopped.
Yes. Here in Canada, one CANNOT work w/o a social security number. If
an employer hires someone w/o one, that employer cannot use the wages
paid as an expense for tax purposes.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
There is a reason that the US borders are wide open to immigrants. If
you need some plumbing done, would you pay $35/hr if you can get it
for $15/hr? If you need factory workers, would you pay $15/hr or
$7.50/hr? The above doesn't even take into consideration the fact that
with illegals, companies don't even have to pay all those "extras"
that increase his cost of labour.
That doesn't explain _why_ they're open, only the effect of their
_being_ open.
The law of supply and demand. If you keep the supply of labour high,
the wages stay low. Wage stagnation of the average worker should be a
cause of concern if allowed to go on for too many years. Unions used
to balance this but they no longer have the strength they once did.
Post by Sinister Midget
They're open because the pols are too gutless to do anything about it.
So every 20 years we give citizenship to people who came illegally,
make new laws that (we are told) will prevent it from ever happening
again, then wait until 20 years later so we can do it another time.
I'm with Charles Krauthammer on this. We should legalize everybody
here. 100% of them. No exceptions except for a few classes of criminal
and people who are a threat (including gang members and leaders, people
wiht terrorist connections, etc). But, something else has to happen
first.
Build a wall. It can be done, no matter what the naysayers claim. Build
it and patrol it. If one wall isn't enough, build 2 and put the patrols
in between. Put cameras, patrol dogs, towers, whatever it takes. We
stop as close to 100% of the illegal entry as possible along the
border.
A few years later, maybe 2 or 3, we talk about integrating 100% of
those already here.
Absorbing illegal aliens isn't a very palatable answer to most people.
But a majority could be convinced only if they really believe this is
the last time we need to go through this.
We can talk about guest worker programs, increasing the level of
immigration and anything else. But it's not going to be a seller to
most people if they think it's all just an excuse to do nothing.
Those who want to compare to the Belin wall should remember that _it_
was designed to keep people in.
Building a wall is well within the means of the US government. It will
occur when American corporate interests feel they have enough labour
to keep wages depressed.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
The American taxpayer has to pick up the tab for schooling and health
care. Of course, the latest Bush tax cuts offsets these effects
somewhat for those in that bracket. They also don't feel the pinch
because their kids don't go to public schools or state hospitals
anyway.
What bracket is that? I got a tax cut. I'm not rich. Not even close.
And I don't make anywhere near the upper levels of income.
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
</quote>
Average Value of Tax-Cut Benefits in 2004
Middle 20 percent $547 $100
Top one percent $1,320 $33,672

Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center

The distribution of these “middle-class provisions” stands in stark
contrast, however, to the distribution of tax benefits under the
remaining tax-cut provisions. The top one percent of the income
spectrum will receive an average tax cut of almost $33,700 from all of
the other tax-cut provisions in 2004, while the middle fifth of
households will receive an average tax cut of just $100. The other
tax cuts provide those at the top of the income scale with average tax
benefits more than 300 times larger than the benefits that those in
the middle of the income spectrum are receiving. This gap will widen
even further over time.
<quote>
Post by Sinister Midget
My kid is going to parochial school. I decided to make it work because
public schools have been destroyed in a lot of places. Even moreso in
this area. It's tough going. But we're committed to doing it. The
lovely and gracious Mrs. Midget is back in school, too, so she can
eventually go back to work and make enough to help this work.
The tax cuts didn't make this possible. The tax cuts barely made a
dent. But the tax cuts gave a slight bit of wiggle room to get us
moving in the right direction. What made it possible was our deciding
to do it. Even if it requires doubling the workload. If the missus
doesn't get what we hope, it may take that just to get him through
school and ino college.
I still pay the same taxes for the lousy schools we don't even use. I'm
not bitching about the principle of it. But I wouldn't mind if that
part changed.
Isn't the money you spend on schooling tax deductible? Have you
compared these reductions to your school tax?
Post by Sinister Midget
My gripe is that the schools here aren't even state certified any more,
and I _still_ pay more and more each year for crappy results. If they
improved or at least stayed the same (and were accredited) I'd not be
so opposed to them. But my boy still wouldn't set foot in them.
The US schools are not doing a very good job in educating. I feel many
of the schools here in Canada are suffering similar problems.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
I think highly of capitalism where an individual owns the means of
production and there is free *and* fair trade. But what I am seeing,
especially in the US, is a form of corporate socialism where companies
are in bed with the state. This path can easily lead to fascism.
I don't totally disagree with that. What I see though, an area that
many like to deny, it's across the board. Politicians of every stripe
are involved, almost at the same level. The people that buy them go by
differing names, but they're just as bad on both sides.
Yes. Both the democrats and republicans are equally controlled too
much by big business.
Post by Sinister Midget
For the record, I don't believe every politician is on the take. But
I'm not sure I could accurately name both of the ones that aren't.
I'm not saying that all the politicians are on the "take" but most of
them are very involved in 'pork barreling' - a time honoured system of
bring home the bacon to their respective constituents in the form of
fat government contracts (mostly in the massive defense budget).
Post by Sinister Midget
As for the individual owning the means of production, that's a fairly
inefficient way of doing things for large scale products. Being part
owner among a group might be useful. Some businesses are like that
already. Being sole owner of something small could work in most cases
and fail in others.
It has been found that there is a size, beyond which corporations
become less efficient. There are industries in which size may be more
efficient but at costs that do not take into consideration damage to
the environment or social structures.
Post by Sinister Midget
I'm not sure the US is the only one involved in corporate socialism.
Perhaps you mean something different than what that term brings to my
mind.
By corporate socialism I mean the tax breaks and outright subsidies
given to large corporations.There are also special compensations given
to postpone or evade paying environmental costs. There has also been
too much use of the government's political and military power to get
special compensations in foreign countries. The 'free' markets are
being manipulated by powerful financial and corporate interests within
the government of all nations. Some more than others.

"He who pays the piper, calls the tune."

Examples are $10 billion tax breaks given to Exxon and the $50 billion
'farm' subsidies given to agri-business.

The gains accrue mainly to the wealthy who can afford to invest more
of their money. Those earning less have to put their money towards
daily living expenses such as food and shelter. This is widening the
gap between the rich and poor at the expense of the middle class.

These people have very little political power other than to vote. But
once their candidate is elected, they have little control over events.
Here in Canada, when a particular party has a majority, the people
have little control of what they actually do. Promises get forgotten
and priorities change. A healthy democracy needs checks and balances
from an effective opposition.

If the vested interests of all political parties merge, there is no
longer a true democracy and one is simply voting for the "lesser
evil". Most give up voting when this happens. Another factor is the
cost of entry into politics. It now takes a billion $ to run for
president. This is turning the US into an oligarchy - a country that
is run and controlled by the wealthy minority.

Alfred E. Smith memorial dinner - GOP $800/plate fundraiser 2000:

"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some
people call you the elites; I call you my base." - George W. Bush

This was meant as a joke but it also speaks the truth.
Sinister Midget
2006-04-18 18:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:33:15 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:27:16 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm#Back83
</quote>
A COMPARISON OF THE U.S. TO OTHER RICH NATIONS
The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States
with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially
revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic
than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their
corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are
higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their
labor unions stronger.
And what may depress many conservatives is that these nations beat us
on statistic after statistic after statistic.
Why are hordes of people lining up to move to the US? Why do hordes of
people try to sneak into the US?
Every nation has similar problems. (Well, almost any nation.) But I
can't locate anything that shows anyone even approaching the numbers
the US gets.
I'll be glad to shown that I'm wrong.
You are not wrong. There is great incentive to earn $5.15/hr. (US
minimum wage - actually higher in individual states) if you are only
earning $.50/hr. or don't even have a job in Mexico or other Latin
American countries.
But if you're earning $0.50/hour in one location, then you move to
another location making $5.15/hr, there's a huge offset in cost of
living. There might be a small gain overall, and there might not be.
But it hardly seems worth risking life, limb, rape, murder and
everything else to only be a tiny bit better off.
They are more than a tiny bit better off. There are jobs which pay
upwards of 20 - 30 times what they can earn at home.
And expenses upwards of 15-30 times what they are at home.
Post by Lobo
Post by Sinister Midget
For those who are illegally resident, it's even worse. They have to
stay under the radar to avoid being caught. That leads to all sorts of
forms of exploitation, threats and fear.
Illegals in the US (once they're safely across the border) lead open
lives. The ones w/o regular jobs wait in designated areas in towns and
cities across America to be picked up for temp jobs. Those with full
time jobs simply go about their business, buy houses and cars and even
do banking.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/news/economy/illegal_immigrants/
</quote>
Banks are seeing an untapped resource in providing home loans to
undocumented U.S. residents
...
"Banks are counting on the fact that we do a lousy job with interior
enforcement," said Celent's Grealish. "Once you're in the country and
you haven't done anything wrong, the chances of being deported are
very slim. Banks are banking on that."
<quote>
We have a woman right here, Myrna Dick, who is an illegal. She thought
she was legal and she wasn't. She's awaiting deportation or an amnesty
bill, whichever comes first. The local authorities aren't rushing
things, but if something isn't passed fairly soon, she's gone.

There are highschool kids in Arizona. They were brought across when
they were too young to remember. They're graduat(ing|ed) now. The next
step may well be deportation. They've already been told and have been
fighting it. They have no recourse except a law that will alow them to
stay.

If enforcement goes after people who have been in the country 15 years
or more, it will go after people just buying houses, just taking out
loans, just getting new jobs, just getting married, just having kids,
etc.

Banks (more specifically S&Ls) have made stupid loans before. Enough so
that we had a crisis caused by making stupid loans. They were bailed
out. There's nothing that says anyone learned anything from it.

Credit card companies have helped extend credit so easily that
bankruptcy rates skyrocketed. They lobbied and got laws passed to crack
down on bankruptcies instead of forcing the CC companies to eat the
failures of their own policies. They have no need to learn anything
from being idiotic. If new clients are deported, they'll find a way to
make everybody else pay for it.

The point I'm making is, looking at what loan companies, banks, credit
card companies and mortgage companies are doing isn't the best
indicator of what to expect. They have and do make reams of mistakes,
and they rarely suffer for any of it. So they have no incentive to use
any caution.
Post by Lobo
Millions openly marched in the streets several weeks ago across the US
demanding citizenship.
Not all of them illegal. Not all of them immigrants. Not all of them
deportable. Quite a few weren't even descendants of latin immigrants.

Plus, they made a huge mistake (and know it, too). They carried the
Mexican flag front and center. We already have a lot of people having
fits (across the spectrum, including latin descendants) that illegals
are not stopped. To see them thumbing their collective noses at
citizens wasn't the best of ideas.

Their "leaders" told them to tone it down because it was hurting their
cause. They did. At least some.

If something isn't done to stem the tide, you can bet there are going
to be a lot of unemployed politicians next election. From both major
parties.
Post by Lobo
Post by Sinister Midget
There are plenty of other places where people would be better off and
not be living in fear forever.
The days of living in fear and working in US sweatshops is over.
?

I guess I'll ignore these then:

http://www.just-style.com/article.aspx?id=92177&lk=nd02

http://www.nomoresweatshops.org/about

http://www.heartsandminds.org/articles/sweat.htm

http://www.soc.duke.edu/courses/soc142/shop1.html

Enough for me. I try to prevent myself from sliding into these kinds of
discussions. Sometimes I fail.

I'll be sure to read whatever response(s).
--
Frontpage: Better than sticking a red hot poker in your eye.
Lobo
2006-04-18 20:21:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:21:15 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:33:15 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:27:16 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm#Back83
</quote>
A COMPARISON OF THE U.S. TO OTHER RICH NATIONS
The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States
with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially
revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic
than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their
corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are
higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their
labor unions stronger.
And what may depress many conservatives is that these nations beat us
on statistic after statistic after statistic.
Why are hordes of people lining up to move to the US? Why do hordes of
people try to sneak into the US?
Every nation has similar problems. (Well, almost any nation.) But I
can't locate anything that shows anyone even approaching the numbers
the US gets.
I'll be glad to shown that I'm wrong.
You are not wrong. There is great incentive to earn $5.15/hr. (US
minimum wage - actually higher in individual states) if you are only
earning $.50/hr. or don't even have a job in Mexico or other Latin
American countries.
But if you're earning $0.50/hour in one location, then you move to
another location making $5.15/hr, there's a huge offset in cost of
living. There might be a small gain overall, and there might not be.
But it hardly seems worth risking life, limb, rape, murder and
everything else to only be a tiny bit better off.
They are more than a tiny bit better off. There are jobs which pay
upwards of 20 - 30 times what they can earn at home.
And expenses upwards of 15-30 times what they are at home.
They still manage to send $20 billion home to their families in
Mexico. This money is second to oil in revenues for that country.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
Post by Sinister Midget
For those who are illegally resident, it's even worse. They have to
stay under the radar to avoid being caught. That leads to all sorts of
forms of exploitation, threats and fear.
Illegals in the US (once they're safely across the border) lead open
lives. The ones w/o regular jobs wait in designated areas in towns and
cities across America to be picked up for temp jobs. Those with full
time jobs simply go about their business, buy houses and cars and even
do banking.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/news/economy/illegal_immigrants/
</quote>
Banks are seeing an untapped resource in providing home loans to
undocumented U.S. residents
...
"Banks are counting on the fact that we do a lousy job with interior
enforcement," said Celent's Grealish. "Once you're in the country and
you haven't done anything wrong, the chances of being deported are
very slim. Banks are banking on that."
<quote>
We have a woman right here, Myrna Dick, who is an illegal. She thought
she was legal and she wasn't. She's awaiting deportation or an amnesty
bill, whichever comes first. The local authorities aren't rushing
things, but if something isn't passed fairly soon, she's gone.
There are highschool kids in Arizona. They were brought across when
they were too young to remember. They're graduat(ing|ed) now. The next
step may well be deportation. They've already been told and have been
fighting it. They have no recourse except a law that will alow them to
stay.
If enforcement goes after people who have been in the country 15 years
or more, it will go after people just buying houses, just taking out
loans, just getting new jobs, just getting married, just having kids,
etc.
The number of people is staggering. There's no way that the government
agencies can process these people in a fair way. They can't even keep
up with the people overstaying on current legal visitor, student or
work visa's, let alone the illegal's.
Post by Sinister Midget
Banks (more specifically S&Ls) have made stupid loans before. Enough so
that we had a crisis caused by making stupid loans. They were bailed
out. There's nothing that says anyone learned anything from it.
More corporate welfare.
Post by Sinister Midget
Credit card companies have helped extend credit so easily that
bankruptcy rates skyrocketed. They lobbied and got laws passed to crack
down on bankruptcies instead of forcing the CC companies to eat the
failures of their own policies. They have no need to learn anything
from being idiotic. If new clients are deported, they'll find a way to
make everybody else pay for it.
Cost of doing business to be passed on to the consumer.
Post by Sinister Midget
The point I'm making is, looking at what loan companies, banks, credit
card companies and mortgage companies are doing isn't the best
indicator of what to expect. They have and do make reams of mistakes,
and they rarely suffer for any of it. So they have no incentive to use
any caution.
That's what comes from having connections in high political office.
The financial markets are not *free* nor are they *open*.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
Millions openly marched in the streets several weeks ago across the US
demanding citizenship.
Not all of them illegal. Not all of them immigrants. Not all of them
deportable. Quite a few weren't even descendants of latin immigrants.
I've read estimates that put the Mexican illegal's at about 50% of the
total. It was still a massive show of support.
Post by Sinister Midget
Plus, they made a huge mistake (and know it, too). They carried the
Mexican flag front and center. We already have a lot of people having
fits (across the spectrum, including latin descendants) that illegals
are not stopped. To see them thumbing their collective noses at
citizens wasn't the best of ideas.
Yep. I was surprised that there was no violence to speak of.
Post by Sinister Midget
Their "leaders" told them to tone it down because it was hurting their
cause. They did. At least some.
If something isn't done to stem the tide, you can bet there are going
to be a lot of unemployed politicians next election. From both major
parties.
This is not a recent problem. It has been going on for decades under
both parties.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
Post by Sinister Midget
There are plenty of other places where people would be better off and
not be living in fear forever.
The days of living in fear and working in US sweatshops is over.
?
http://www.just-style.com/article.aspx?id=92177&lk=nd02
login required
This appears to be a recent case and it is good that the net is
exposing it. Especially as it is the government itself that is the end
user.
Post by Sinister Midget
http://www.nomoresweatshops.org/about
" responsible role in the global marketplace instead of
using our tax dollars to subsidize sweatshops, child labor and
poverty"
Post by Sinister Midget
http://www.heartsandminds.org/articles/sweat.htm
August 1995
Post by Sinister Midget
http://www.soc.duke.edu/courses/soc142/shop1.html
10.23.95

It has been my impression that the US clamped down hard on American
sweatshops in the last 10 years. I realize that it is still going on
but nowhere near as much as it did in the 90's. Of course it is still
rampant in second and third world countries.
Post by Sinister Midget
Enough for me. I try to prevent myself from sliding into these kinds of
discussions. Sometimes I fail.
These threads tend to get carried away.
Post by Sinister Midget
I'll be sure to read whatever response(s).
I'm wondering if there will be clashes and violence on May1?
http://www.immigrantsolidarity.org/
May 1, 2006: Call to Action!

"El Gran Paro Americano 2006" "The Great American Boycott 2006"

"Un dia sin immigrante" "A day without an immigrant"

Nationwide General Immigrant Strike!
Wear White T-Shirt at May 1st!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hr_4437
I am thinking that some groups in the US would like to gain
ammunition in pushing bill H.R. 4437 thru the senate by instigating
violence in an otherwise peacful march.
m***@e4500.sandbox.au
2006-04-22 06:32:35 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:33:15 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:27:16 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm#Back83
</quote>
A COMPARISON OF THE U.S. TO OTHER RICH NATIONS
The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States
with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially
revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic
than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their
corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are
higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their
labor unions stronger.
And what may depress many conservatives is that these nations beat us
on statistic after statistic after statistic.
Why are hordes of people lining up to move to the US? Why do hordes of
people try to sneak into the US?
Every nation has similar problems. (Well, almost any nation.) But I
can't locate anything that shows anyone even approaching the numbers
the US gets.
I'll be glad to shown that I'm wrong.
You are not wrong. There is great incentive to earn $5.15/hr. (US
minimum wage - actually higher in individual states) if you are only
earning $.50/hr. or don't even have a job in Mexico or other Latin
American countries.
But if you're earning $0.50/hour in one location, then you move to
another location making $5.15/hr, there's a huge offset in cost of
living. There might be a small gain overall, and there might not be.
But it hardly seems worth risking life, limb, rape, murder and
everything else to only be a tiny bit better off.
For those who are illegally resident, it's even worse. They have to
stay under the radar to avoid being caught. That leads to all sorts of
forms of exploitation, threats and fear.
There are plenty of other places where people would be better off and
not be living in fear forever.
Post by Lobo
http://www.alternet.org/story/34690/
</quote>
A Rising Tide in Mexico
By Chuck Collins, AlterNet. Posted April 13, 2006.
The next president of Mexico could be a left populist who puts the
needs of ordinary Mexicans ahead of international corporate investors
-- if the U.S. refrains from meddling.
....
From the outside, Mexico appears to have had a decade of stability.
But the reality is that poverty and insecurity are rising. Real wages
have plummeted, and many communities in rural Mexico are now ghost
towns after being devastated by the loss of 2 million agricultural
jobs. Mexican farmers, after NAFTA, are unable to compete with the
imports flowing in from subsidized U.S. farmers, particularly in corn.
<quote>
At the same time a fair number of manufacturing jobs have moved south
of the border. Not as many as the union thugs would have us believe,
but enough that many of those destitute agricultural workers should be
employed for as good or better income.
I sure see a lot of fruits and vegetables available in a couple of the
chain groceries here that aren't native to the US, too. They're coming
from someplace. Since they're particularly popular with a lot of the
Mexican and Latin American people, my guess is they aren't coming from
India or Canada. I could be wrong I suppose.
Post by Lobo
There are millions of jobs, paying $10-$15/hr., for landscapers,
plumbers, construction workers, as well as in the service industry.
(Some even get to drive big fancy tractors, harvesting corn.)
These are the so-called jobs that Americans (we are told) won't do. But
I guess thos same Americans are OK with $7/hour working in McDoodoo's
or parking cars for tips.
That "Americans won't do those jobs" argument is nonsense. The cheap and
infinite labour force from down south fills those jobs. Those jobs would
be filled by locals if decent wages were being paid.

I'm in a similar job - I'm a nightfiller at Woolworths, a Australian
supermarket chain employing about 150,000 people (IIRC). (Only until I
finish university, though.)

$7/hour, as an adult wage, is absurd. The absolute minimum (legal) adult
wage in Australia, is $12.30 AUD per hour (about $9.20 USD), and almost
nobody gets paid that little. McDonalds, the supermarkets etc all
pay more than that. The cost of living here (except in Sydney) is typically
lower than the USA, too.

For example, most staff at Woolworths, our largest supermarket chain, get
around $16 AUD per hour ($12 USD) before tax.

Thanks to the Howard government's "reforms", workplace conditions
will soon be going the way of the USA *deliberately*, because the
government has dramatically reduced the ability of unions to negotiate
awards and enterprise bargaining agreements on behalf of employees.
Lobo
2006-04-22 08:14:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:33:15 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:27:16 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Lobo
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm#Back83
</quote>
A COMPARISON OF THE U.S. TO OTHER RICH NATIONS
The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States
with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially
revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic
than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their
corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are
higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their
labor unions stronger.
And what may depress many conservatives is that these nations beat us
on statistic after statistic after statistic.
Why are hordes of people lining up to move to the US? Why do hordes of
people try to sneak into the US?
Every nation has similar problems. (Well, almost any nation.) But I
can't locate anything that shows anyone even approaching the numbers
the US gets.
I'll be glad to shown that I'm wrong.
You are not wrong. There is great incentive to earn $5.15/hr. (US
minimum wage - actually higher in individual states) if you are only
earning $.50/hr. or don't even have a job in Mexico or other Latin
American countries.
But if you're earning $0.50/hour in one location, then you move to
another location making $5.15/hr, there's a huge offset in cost of
living. There might be a small gain overall, and there might not be.
But it hardly seems worth risking life, limb, rape, murder and
everything else to only be a tiny bit better off.
For those who are illegally resident, it's even worse. They have to
stay under the radar to avoid being caught. That leads to all sorts of
forms of exploitation, threats and fear.
There are plenty of other places where people would be better off and
not be living in fear forever.
Post by Lobo
http://www.alternet.org/story/34690/
</quote>
A Rising Tide in Mexico
By Chuck Collins, AlterNet. Posted April 13, 2006.
The next president of Mexico could be a left populist who puts the
needs of ordinary Mexicans ahead of international corporate investors
-- if the U.S. refrains from meddling.
....
From the outside, Mexico appears to have had a decade of stability.
But the reality is that poverty and insecurity are rising. Real wages
have plummeted, and many communities in rural Mexico are now ghost
towns after being devastated by the loss of 2 million agricultural
jobs. Mexican farmers, after NAFTA, are unable to compete with the
imports flowing in from subsidized U.S. farmers, particularly in corn.
<quote>
At the same time a fair number of manufacturing jobs have moved south
of the border. Not as many as the union thugs would have us believe,
but enough that many of those destitute agricultural workers should be
employed for as good or better income.
I sure see a lot of fruits and vegetables available in a couple of the
chain groceries here that aren't native to the US, too. They're coming
from someplace. Since they're particularly popular with a lot of the
Mexican and Latin American people, my guess is they aren't coming from
India or Canada. I could be wrong I suppose.
Post by Lobo
There are millions of jobs, paying $10-$15/hr., for landscapers,
plumbers, construction workers, as well as in the service industry.
(Some even get to drive big fancy tractors, harvesting corn.)
These are the so-called jobs that Americans (we are told) won't do. But
I guess thos same Americans are OK with $7/hour working in McDoodoo's
or parking cars for tips.
That "Americans won't do those jobs" argument is nonsense. The cheap and
infinite labour force from down south fills those jobs. Those jobs would
be filled by locals if decent wages were being paid.
I'm in a similar job - I'm a nightfiller at Woolworths, a Australian
supermarket chain employing about 150,000 people (IIRC). (Only until I
finish university, though.)
$7/hour, as an adult wage, is absurd. The absolute minimum (legal) adult
wage in Australia, is $12.30 AUD per hour (about $9.20 USD), and almost
nobody gets paid that little. McDonalds, the supermarkets etc all
pay more than that. The cost of living here (except in Sydney) is typically
lower than the USA, too.
For example, most staff at Woolworths, our largest supermarket chain, get
around $16 AUD per hour ($12 USD) before tax.
Thanks to the Howard government's "reforms", workplace conditions
will soon be going the way of the USA *deliberately*, because the
government has dramatically reduced the ability of unions to negotiate
awards and enterprise bargaining agreements on behalf of employees.
You understand the point I was trying to make.
John A. Bailo
2006-04-17 19:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States
with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially
revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic
than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their
corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are
higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their
labor unions stronger.
These nations also get a "free ride" by being protected by the US
Defense umbrella. They spend almost no money on armaments, yet if
invaded or attacked, would surely be supported and defended by the
United States. So, they can recycle more of their money to social
welfare.

These countries do not make any attempt to protect themselves from
terrorists. They do not police themselves and instead have had an
"open door" policy to any and all. The results of that are the riots
in France, which will only worsen. Talk to me in a year or two, when
Paris is in flames, and the violence spreads to the suburbs, about how
"great it is in Europe".

But lest be thought too altruistic, in return they act as our /shields/
-- Japan for China, Europe for Russia. Canada is our resource -- its
oil backs us up and once fully productionized will free us from
non-North American sources.

So, yes, these countries have "better benefits" but only because they
live closer to the danger zones.

In a perfect world, where there are no totalitarian enemies, and no
terrorists, the US would have the most perfect, most well funded, best
infrastructure and social welfare -- we just can't afford it right now...
Lobo
2006-04-17 22:42:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:33:24 -0700, "John A. Bailo"
Post by John A. Bailo
Post by Lobo
The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States
with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially
revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic
than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their
corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are
higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their
labor unions stronger.
These nations also get a "free ride" by being protected by the US
Defense umbrella. They spend almost no money on armaments, yet if
invaded or attacked, would surely be supported and defended by the
United States. So, they can recycle more of their money to social
welfare.
Canada neither needs nor wants US *protection*. We simply don't have
the enemies that the US has. We're not interested in playing *Star
Wars* with the US.
Post by John A. Bailo
These countries do not make any attempt to protect themselves from
terrorists. They do not police themselves and instead have had an
"open door" policy to any and all.
The US's back door is wide open. There are 10/11 million (some
estimates at 20) illegal's. Nobody really knows who these are. Why
isn't the Bush administration worried about "terrorists" coming in
that way? It seems that *The Department of Homeland Security* (doesn't
that name give you such a comfy, warm feeling??) is more concerned
about grandma taking an airplane ride to visit the grandchildren in
another state.

Canadians are more afraid of being shot and killed in US cities than
by terrorists.
Post by John A. Bailo
The results of that are the riots
The riots were caused by socio-economic policies NOT terrorists. Just
as similar riots were which occurred in the US.
Post by John A. Bailo
in France, which will only worsen. Talk to me in a year or two, when
Paris is in flames, and the violence spreads to the suburbs, about how
"great it is in Europe".
Like when Detroit and LA were in flames?

http://rwor.org/a/v19/910-19/915/det67.htm
<quote>
The 1967 Detroit Rebellion
...
"The trouble burst on Detroit like a firestorm and turned the nation's
fifth biggest city into a theater of war. Whole streets lay ravaged by
looters, whole blocks immolated by flames. Federal troops--the first
sent into racial battle outside the South in a quarter of a
century--occupied American streets at bayonet point. Patton
tanks--machine guns ablaze--and Huey helicopters patrolled a cityscape
of blackened brick chimneys poking out of gutted basements. And
suddenly Harlem 1964 and Watts 1965 and Newark only three weeks ago
fell into the shadows of memory. Detroit was the new benchmark, its
rubble a monument to the most devastating race riot in U.S.
history--and a symbol of domestic crisis grown graver than any since
the Civil War.
....
Detroit typified a situation where Black people were right at the
heart of American society as urban workers and, at the same time,
forcibly held in an exploited and oppressed condition relative to
whites. Detroit was Motor City. And in the auto plants, discrimination
was deep, and the United Auto Workers (UAW)--which had excluded Black
members for years--was blatantly racist. In the Twelfth Street area
about 30 percent of Blacks under 25 were unemployed and population
density in the rundown apartments was 21,000 persons per square
mile--double the city average.
<quote>
Post by John A. Bailo
But lest be thought too altruistic, in return they act as our /shields/
-- Japan for China, Europe for Russia. Canada is our resource -- its
oil backs us up and once fully productionized will free us from
non-North American sources.
Don't be so sure that you will get all the oil. China already has
considerable investments in the Athabasca Oil fields in Alberta. They
are looking to invest another 2 billion dollars. Studies are being
done for a pipeline across the Rockies to ship oil to the East.

http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/060407/15/3zxsh.html
</quote>
However, the biggest deal signed by a Chinese company in 2005 wasn't
for a production development. It was for oil supplies. PetroChina
International Co. (PTR) signed a preliminary agreement to buy half of
the crude transported through the Gateway project, a C$4 billion oil
pipeline being developed by Canada's Enbridge Inc. (ENB).

The route, which would carry 400,000 b/d, would connect Alberta to
Canada's Pacific coast, allowing Canadian crude to be exported not
only to the U.S. West Coast but also to Asian markets. Enbridge is
offering minority stakes of up to 49% equity in the project, and
PetroChina is believed to be interested in a stake.
<quote>
Post by John A. Bailo
So, yes, these countries have "better benefits" but only because they
live closer to the danger zones.
In a perfect world, where there are no totalitarian enemies, and no
terrorists,
http://www.geocities.com/bushcheney1984/why.html
</quote>
Orwell’s Oceania and the real world’s United States share a
pattern of shifting allegiances. Yesterday’s ally is today’s enemy.
History has been systematically erased from memory and rewritten to
fit the lies of the government today. The U.S. government has no
loyalty to its own collaborators. Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, the
Taliban, Noriega, Marcos, Pinochet, the Samozas, the Shah, the
Duvaliers, even the Khmer Rouge were all allies or useful tools of
American imperialism, but such collaborators become expendable when
they outlive their usefulness. History is forgotten, ignored, or
re-written when current interests turn yesterday’s ally into today’s
demonic enemy.
<quote>
Post by John A. Bailo
the US would have the most perfect, most well funded, best
infrastructure and social welfare -- we just can't afford it right now...
The US will never have that as long as they continue to have the same
foreign policies. In the US, war has become a HUGE, profitable
business opportunity.

Why We Fight
http://www.mininova.org/tor/68961

Watching the US fight third world countries is like watching someone
playing "whack-a-mole". They think, by using a bigger and better and
more expensive club, they can stop them from popping up.
Unfortunately, the end result is more and more moles popping up.
Old Boy
2006-05-10 15:28:09 UTC
Permalink
First Post article bemoans the lack of hero hackers...

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=509

JEDIDIAH
2006-04-17 12:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
Post by John Bailo
Post by Lobo
If you read above, I stated "had been stripping". The nationalization
of the Anglo-American oil companies started in the 1960's.
What you don't mention is that the ability of the Middle East to grow
and participate in today's technological society is entirely due to the
largesse of money that flows into it from the American consumer.
Which mainly goes to the relative few holding power in many countries
such as the royal family in Saudi Arabia.
That's an Arab problem and would exist even if there was
no reason for Europe to pay any attention to that part of the world.
--
Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! |||
/ | \
Mark Kent
2006-04-17 14:10:27 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Lobo
Post by John Bailo
Post by Lobo
If you read above, I stated "had been stripping". The nationalization
of the Anglo-American oil companies started in the 1960's.
What you don't mention is that the ability of the Middle East to grow
and participate in today's technological society is entirely due to the
largesse of money that flows into it from the American consumer.
Which mainly goes to the relative few holding power in many countries
such as the royal family in Saudi Arabia.
That's an Arab problem and would exist even if there was
no reason for Europe to pay any attention to that part of the world.
Hardly an Arab problem. It's a global problem. Or would you argue that
Bush is sharing power?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
The days just prior to marriage are like a snappy introduction to a
tedious book.
The Ghost In The Machine
2006-04-17 19:57:20 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mark Kent
<***@demon.co.uk>
wrote
on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:10:27 +0100
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by Lobo
Post by John Bailo
Post by Lobo
If you read above, I stated "had been stripping". The nationalization
of the Anglo-American oil companies started in the 1960's.
What you don't mention is that the ability of the Middle East to grow
and participate in today's technological society is entirely due to the
largesse of money that flows into it from the American consumer.
Which mainly goes to the relative few holding power in many countries
such as the royal family in Saudi Arabia.
That's an Arab problem and would exist even if there was
no reason for Europe to pay any attention to that part of the world.
Hardly an Arab problem. It's a global problem. Or would you argue that
Bush is sharing power?
The Arabs would have been perfectly happy with Saddam
Hussein continuing in power in Iraq. Therefore, it's an
American problem. :-)
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because everyone wants a really slick-looking 8-sided wheel.
JEDIDIAH
2006-04-17 12:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
Post by Lobo
What Blair failed to mention in his speech is that the UK as well as
the US were directly complicit in creating the current economic and
political conditions in the middle east. British and American oil
companies had been stripping the wealth from these countries for
decades.
Stripping?
Quite right. Without all of this "stripping" there would be
nothing in that part of the world but sand and camels. There would
be absolutely no wealth to speak of.
Post by John Bailo
I guess that explains the beeline of all the Lexus sedans that left
Kuwait when Saddam invaded.
--
Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! |||
/ | \
Lobo
2006-04-17 16:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by John Bailo
Post by Lobo
What Blair failed to mention in his speech is that the UK as well as
the US were directly complicit in creating the current economic and
political conditions in the middle east. British and American oil
companies had been stripping the wealth from these countries for
decades.
Stripping?
Quite right. Without all of this "stripping" there would be
nothing in that part of the world but sand and camels. There would
be absolutely no wealth to speak of.
That facile argument went out of style in the 60's. I'm sure you can
do better.
Post by JEDIDIAH
Post by John Bailo
I guess that explains the beeline of all the Lexus sedans that left
Kuwait when Saddam invaded.
Mark Kent
2006-04-16 14:27:59 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by M
<snip>
Post by Mark Kent
Post by M
No YOU are the one that speaks out of ignorance. As the Israeli's would
have told you, the Iraqi army was largely a band on conscripts who didn't
want to be there, very ill disciplined and quite easy for *any*
professional western army to beat.
An interesting linkage here - wonder what this might have to do with the
Israelis?
My linkage comes in the form of the fact that Israel has fought several wars
with the Arabs in the past, has got the *best* secret service in the world
and would have been able to tell both the US and the UK, that altough Iraq
had a large army, it was a 4th rate army at best.
I wonder how you measure what the 'best' secret service is? Seems to me
like a completely unsupportable claim.

I would point out that the UK has fought more wars with Arabs in the
past than either Israel or the US, and has an older and more established
set of secret services than either.
Post by M
Post by Mark Kent
Unfortunately, even 1,000,000 demonstrators in the UK who knew better
couldn't dissuade their idiot prime minister, Tony Blair.
I watched a program all about Tony Blair, and what I didn't appreciate (and
probable you don't either) is that he doesn't leave his religion at the
church on sunday. When he gets it into his head that he thinks he is right
on a particular issue, it becomes a matter of 'faith' rather than
objectivity, which is actually quite scary. I wouldn't describe him as an
idiot, but I think he could be quite possible described as dangerous.
That's an American thing, isn't it? I'm aware that Tony Blair has, on
one occasion, made a claim that 'God will be my judge'. In my view,
that either qualifies him to be a US president or should require him to
resign from the British government immediately on the grounds of
complete lack of competence.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Harrisberger's Fourth Law of the Lab:
Experience is directly proportional to the
amount of equipment ruined.
M
2006-04-16 16:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by M
<snip>
Post by Mark Kent
Post by M
No YOU are the one that speaks out of ignorance. As the Israeli's would
have told you, the Iraqi army was largely a band on conscripts who
didn't want to be there, very ill disciplined and quite easy for *any*
professional western army to beat.
An interesting linkage here - wonder what this might have to do with the
Israelis?
My linkage comes in the form of the fact that Israel has fought several
wars with the Arabs in the past, has got the *best* secret service in the
world and would have been able to tell both the US and the UK, that
altough Iraq had a large army, it was a 4th rate army at best.
I wonder how you measure what the 'best' secret service is? Seems to me
like a completely unsupportable claim.
I would point out that the UK has fought more wars with Arabs in the
past than either Israel or the US, and has an older and more established
set of secret services than either.
To some extent your right I can't measure the 'best' secret service, I can't
point to a URL or whatever, but consider this:

Necessity is the mother of invention. If you are surrounded by Arab nations
on *all* sides that want nothing less than your total distruction (which
was true at the time of the 6 day war and before), Black September, the PLO
etc etc, you either become very good or you cease to exist.

Add to that, how many ex Cambridge graduates/KGB agents do you know that
worked in the British secret service, and how many KGB agents do you know
infiltrated Mosad?

I know I would not want to tangle with Mosad :-)

The only Israeli I know that gave the authorities any problems was the one
that leaked the nuclear information, and look what happened to him. Even to
this day he has to be carefull who he talks to.

The UK may well have fought more wars with Arabs, but we are over 3000 miles
away, the Israelis are living it and breathing *every* day of their lives.
They know how good, bad, or indifferent the armies are that are around
them. They *have* to know to continue to exist.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by M
Post by Mark Kent
Unfortunately, even 1,000,000 demonstrators in the UK who knew better
couldn't dissuade their idiot prime minister, Tony Blair.
I watched a program all about Tony Blair, and what I didn't appreciate
(and probable you don't either) is that he doesn't leave his religion at
the church on sunday. When he gets it into his head that he thinks he is
right on a particular issue, it becomes a matter of 'faith' rather than
objectivity, which is actually quite scary. I wouldn't describe him as an
idiot, but I think he could be quite possible described as dangerous.
That's an American thing, isn't it? I'm aware that Tony Blair has, on
one occasion, made a claim that 'God will be my judge'. In my view,
that either qualifies him to be a US president or should require him to
resign from the British government immediately on the grounds of
complete lack of competence.
Yes I would have to agree with you there.

Regards,

M
Mark Kent
2006-04-16 17:13:22 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by M
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by M
<snip>
Post by Mark Kent
Post by M
No YOU are the one that speaks out of ignorance. As the Israeli's would
have told you, the Iraqi army was largely a band on conscripts who
didn't want to be there, very ill disciplined and quite easy for *any*
professional western army to beat.
An interesting linkage here - wonder what this might have to do with the
Israelis?
My linkage comes in the form of the fact that Israel has fought several
wars with the Arabs in the past, has got the *best* secret service in the
world and would have been able to tell both the US and the UK, that
altough Iraq had a large army, it was a 4th rate army at best.
I wonder how you measure what the 'best' secret service is? Seems to me
like a completely unsupportable claim.
I would point out that the UK has fought more wars with Arabs in the
past than either Israel or the US, and has an older and more established
set of secret services than either.
To some extent your right I can't measure the 'best' secret service, I can't
Necessity is the mother of invention. If you are surrounded by Arab nations
on *all* sides that want nothing less than your total distruction (which
was true at the time of the 6 day war and before), Black September, the PLO
etc etc, you either become very good or you cease to exist.
Which is about the length of the history of Israel, because before then,
it was Palestine, part of the British Empire, complete with MI5 and MI6
stations, as well as Naval Intelligence.

The 6-day war and events leading up to it were and are a damning
indictment of British policy in the region during the dismantling of the
Empire. For many countries and regions, the process was highly
successful, and often left behind countries in a far better state than
they were found in many respects, but in many cases this did not happen.
The middle-east was disastrous in this respect.

The PLO are, of course, a result of that policy, as the formation of
Israel was not properly thought out, and the fledgling country not
properly supported. However, this was mixed with the post-war growth of
soviet communist expansion, so the western countries were happy to see
Israel fight and beat Egypt, as an example. This left the Palestinians
(ie., the other previous occupants of Palestine, also in the main
Semitic, but Arab/Muslim rather than Jewish) rather abandoned,
displaced, invaded, occupied, and so on.

Of course, the UN decreed that the "occupied territories", ie., the bits
of Palestine which were not part of the "original" Israel should be
abandoned, but Israel refuses to do so, and the US refuses to take
further action against Israel - stalemate. Who loses? The
Palestinians. Again.

Now I'm not particularly pro Arab nor pro Israeli, but I'm quite sure
that better handling of the instantiation of modern Israel by Britain
could've avoided much of the present problems, which also brings one on
to consider Saddam Hussein - did you know that he was part of a youth
group which grew up with a strong anti-British sentiment from, guess
what? Our last occupation of that region. Sort of reaping what we sow,
here.

Unfortunately, the kind of arrogant foreign politicing which resulted in
the whole Palestinian situation is being repeated by Rumsfeld and Bush,
with Blair brown necking as far as he can, so I think we can safely say
that we've created another situation, rather like the current one, which
will just come nicely to fruition for our grandchildren, or at least,
those of us lucky to have them.

So, how much do you think Mossad know about British decision making
which lead up to their present situation? Or about British activities
in Iraq when we were last there? Or about British support for the Shah
of Iran? (he was in charge before the Ayatollahs came along), or about
the US training and arming of Saddam? About the Iran/Iraq war as
encouraged by Britain/US, expecting Iraq to /win/!?

Frankly, Mossad and Israel have been as much a pawn in this as the
Arabs have. And I'm quite sure that they know that.
Post by M
Add to that, how many ex Cambridge graduates/KGB agents do you know that
worked in the British secret service, and how many KGB agents do you know
infiltrated Mosad?
You really think that they /didn't/? The difference is that MI5 find
them.
Post by M
I know I would not want to tangle with Mosad :-)
I wouldn't want to tangle with any secret service, but then, as I'm not
representing an ideologically opposed government in any way, then I'm
not likely to, either.
Post by M
The only Israeli I know that gave the authorities any problems was the one
that leaked the nuclear information, and look what happened to him. Even to
this day he has to be carefull who he talks to.
The Israelis have a terrible record here at finding moles, it's true.
Post by M
The UK may well have fought more wars with Arabs, but we are over 3000 miles
away, the Israelis are living it and breathing *every* day of their lives.
They are heavily focussed on trying to keep the population of the
occupied territories from gaining their land back, so certainly they
have a strong interest in them.
Post by M
They know how good, bad, or indifferent the armies are that are around
them. They *have* to know to continue to exist.
Israel's primary interest is in the activities of the Palestinians,
who'd like their territory back. Iraq is a long way away, being beyond
Jordan, and having no direct border to Israel. I can see no particular
reason why Israeli intelligence would be any better than anybody else's
on the matters of Iraq. As Israel has not existed for long (at least as
a country), then there's no much historical data to call upon either.
Post by M
Post by Mark Kent
Post by M
Post by Mark Kent
Unfortunately, even 1,000,000 demonstrators in the UK who knew better
couldn't dissuade their idiot prime minister, Tony Blair.
I watched a program all about Tony Blair, and what I didn't appreciate
(and probable you don't either) is that he doesn't leave his religion at
the church on sunday. When he gets it into his head that he thinks he is
right on a particular issue, it becomes a matter of 'faith' rather than
objectivity, which is actually quite scary. I wouldn't describe him as an
idiot, but I think he could be quite possible described as dangerous.
That's an American thing, isn't it? I'm aware that Tony Blair has, on
one occasion, made a claim that 'God will be my judge'. In my view,
that either qualifies him to be a US president or should require him to
resign from the British government immediately on the grounds of
complete lack of competence.
Yes I would have to agree with you there.
It's frightening, isn't it?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Harrisberger's Fourth Law of the Lab:
Experience is directly proportional to the
amount of equipment ruined.
M
2006-04-16 18:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by M
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by M
<snip>
Post by Mark Kent
Post by M
No YOU are the one that speaks out of ignorance. As the Israeli's
would have told you, the Iraqi army was largely a band on conscripts
who didn't want to be there, very ill disciplined and quite easy for
*any* professional western army to beat.
An interesting linkage here - wonder what this might have to do with
the Israelis?
My linkage comes in the form of the fact that Israel has fought several
wars with the Arabs in the past, has got the *best* secret service in
the world and would have been able to tell both the US and the UK, that
altough Iraq had a large army, it was a 4th rate army at best.
I wonder how you measure what the 'best' secret service is? Seems to me
like a completely unsupportable claim.
I would point out that the UK has fought more wars with Arabs in the
past than either Israel or the US, and has an older and more established
set of secret services than either.
To some extent your right I can't measure the 'best' secret service, I
Necessity is the mother of invention. If you are surrounded by Arab
nations on *all* sides that want nothing less than your total distruction
(which was true at the time of the 6 day war and before), Black
September, the PLO etc etc, you either become very good or you cease to
exist.
Which is about the length of the history of Israel, because before then,
it was Palestine, part of the British Empire, complete with MI5 and MI6
stations, as well as Naval Intelligence.
The 6-day war and events leading up to it were and are a damning
indictment of British policy in the region during the dismantling of the
Empire. For many countries and regions, the process was highly
successful, and often left behind countries in a far better state than
they were found in many respects, but in many cases this did not happen.
The middle-east was disastrous in this respect.
The PLO are, of course, a result of that policy, as the formation of
Israel was not properly thought out, and the fledgling country not
properly supported. However, this was mixed with the post-war growth of
soviet communist expansion, so the western countries were happy to see
Israel fight and beat Egypt, as an example. This left the Palestinians
(ie., the other previous occupants of Palestine, also in the main
Semitic, but Arab/Muslim rather than Jewish) rather abandoned,
displaced, invaded, occupied, and so on.
Of course, the UN decreed that the "occupied territories", ie., the bits
of Palestine which were not part of the "original" Israel should be
abandoned, but Israel refuses to do so, and the US refuses to take
further action against Israel - stalemate. Who loses? The
Palestinians. Again.
Yes I agree, we made a right pigs-ear of it.
Post by Mark Kent
Now I'm not particularly pro Arab nor pro Israeli, but I'm quite sure
that better handling of the instantiation of modern Israel by Britain
could've avoided much of the present problems, which also brings one on
to consider Saddam Hussein - did you know that he was part of a youth
group which grew up with a strong anti-British sentiment from, guess
what? Our last occupation of that region. Sort of reaping what we sow,
here.
Yes and Yes.

Northern Iraq is blessed with Oil, a fantastic climate, and some wonderful
history. These are the benefits the Iraqi people should be reaping.
Post by Mark Kent
Unfortunately, the kind of arrogant foreign politicing which resulted in
the whole Palestinian situation is being repeated by Rumsfeld and Bush,
with Blair brown necking as far as he can, so I think we can safely say
that we've created another situation, rather like the current one, which
will just come nicely to fruition for our grandchildren, or at least,
those of us lucky to have them.
To true. Having said that the Romans had a few local difficulties with
Palestinian 2000 years ago. Only thing that seems to changed are the
weapons.

Last I heard Rumsfeld was getting a bit of a bumpy ride, and Bush has been
stupid enough to nail his flag to Rumsfeld.
Post by Mark Kent
So, how much do you think Mossad know about British decision making
which lead up to their present situation? Or about British activities
in Iraq when we were last there? Or about British support for the Shah
of Iran? (he was in charge before the Ayatollahs came along), or about
the US training and arming of Saddam? About the Iran/Iraq war as
encouraged by Britain/US, expecting Iraq to /win/!?
Frankly, Mossad and Israel have been as much a pawn in this as the
Arabs have. And I'm quite sure that they know that.
Yes again.
Post by Mark Kent
Post by M
Add to that, how many ex Cambridge graduates/KGB agents do you know that
worked in the British secret service, and how many KGB agents do you know
infiltrated Mosad?
You really think that they /didn't/? The difference is that MI5 find
them.
Well eventually...
Post by Mark Kent
Post by M
I know I would not want to tangle with Mosad :-)
I wouldn't want to tangle with any secret service, but then, as I'm not
representing an ideologically opposed government in any way, then I'm
not likely to, either.
Post by M
The only Israeli I know that gave the authorities any problems was the
one that leaked the nuclear information, and look what happened to him.
Even to this day he has to be carefull who he talks to.
The Israelis have a terrible record here at finding moles, it's true.
Post by M
The UK may well have fought more wars with Arabs, but we are over 3000
miles away, the Israelis are living it and breathing *every* day of their
lives.
They are heavily focussed on trying to keep the population of the
occupied territories from gaining their land back, so certainly they
have a strong interest in them.
Post by M
They know how good, bad, or indifferent the armies are that are around
them. They *have* to know to continue to exist.
Israel's primary interest is in the activities of the Palestinians,
who'd like their territory back. Iraq is a long way away, being beyond
Jordan, and having no direct border to Israel. I can see no particular
reason why Israeli intelligence would be any better than anybody else's
on the matters of Iraq. As Israel has not existed for long (at least as
a country), then there's no much historical data to call upon either.
Post by M
Post by Mark Kent
Post by M
Post by Mark Kent
Unfortunately, even 1,000,000 demonstrators in the UK who knew better
couldn't dissuade their idiot prime minister, Tony Blair.
I watched a program all about Tony Blair, and what I didn't appreciate
(and probable you don't either) is that he doesn't leave his religion
at the church on sunday. When he gets it into his head that he thinks
he is right on a particular issue, it becomes a matter of 'faith'
rather than objectivity, which is actually quite scary. I wouldn't
describe him as an idiot, but I think he could be quite possible
described as dangerous.
That's an American thing, isn't it? I'm aware that Tony Blair has, on
one occasion, made a claim that 'God will be my judge'. In my view,
that either qualifies him to be a US president or should require him to
resign from the British government immediately on the grounds of
complete lack of competence.
Yes I would have to agree with you there.
It's frightening, isn't it?
It certainly is frightening.

Regards,

M
Jim
2006-04-16 16:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by M
<snip>
Post by Mark Kent
Post by M
No YOU are the one that speaks out of ignorance. As the Israeli's would
have told you, the Iraqi army was largely a band on conscripts who didn't
want to be there, very ill disciplined and quite easy for *any*
professional western army to beat.
An interesting linkage here - wonder what this might have to do with the
Israelis?
My linkage comes in the form of the fact that Israel has fought several wars
with the Arabs in the past, has got the *best* secret service in the world
and would have been able to tell both the US and the UK, that altough Iraq
had a large army, it was a 4th rate army at best.
I wonder how you measure what the 'best' secret service is? Seems to me
like a completely unsupportable claim.
I would point out that the UK has fought more wars with Arabs in the
past than either Israel or the US, and has an older and more established
set of secret services than either.
Post by M
Post by Mark Kent
Unfortunately, even 1,000,000 demonstrators in the UK who knew better
couldn't dissuade their idiot prime minister, Tony Blair.
I watched a program all about Tony Blair, and what I didn't appreciate (and
probable you don't either) is that he doesn't leave his religion at the
church on sunday. When he gets it into his head that he thinks he is right
on a particular issue, it becomes a matter of 'faith' rather than
objectivity, which is actually quite scary. I wouldn't describe him as an
idiot, but I think he could be quite possible described as dangerous.
That's an American thing, isn't it? I'm aware that Tony Blair has, on
one occasion, made a claim that 'God will be my judge'. In my view,
that either qualifies him to be a US president or should require him to
resign from the British government immediately on the grounds of
complete lack of competence.
As a Briton, that tidbit actually scares teh crap out of me more than
any "terrorist" sticking an AK47 up my left nostril could ever do. Any
man who claims anything he does in the name of a fictional character has
NO BUSINESS at the seat of power.
Robert Newson
2006-04-16 20:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Jim wrote:

...
Post by Jim
As a Briton, that tidbit actually scares teh crap out of me more than
any "terrorist" sticking an AK47 up my left nostril could ever do. Any
man who claims anything he does in the name of a fictional character has
NO BUSINESS at the seat of power.
Tell that to the Israelis then. Not to mention the Muslim states as well.
billwg
2006-04-16 23:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
It certainly wasn't a wasted "lesson". Even countries that had
populations that were once friendly towards the US are now seething
with hatred.
"Seething"? Who would that be, wolfie? You imagine things, to be sure,
just like you think linux will win on the desktop. It will never
happen. Countries are not friendly or unfriendly per se, wolfie, at
least according to the current thinking. They are all looking for
advantage. Knowing that there is a line that cannot be crossed lest the
third herd show up in your capital with your pictures on their card
decks certainly gives a lot of pause to those rugheads that would like
to shake nuclear threats around the Middle East.
Post by Lobo
Post by M
Rubbish, a few days of sustained bombing, couple of local battles and
occupation was in full swing.
The Israeli's put paid to plans that 20 million Arabs had in the 6 day war,
so if the US had not walked over the Iraqi army it would have been a totall
embarrassment.
Post by billwg
It is easy to sit back
and see how your suicide squad can operate under an occupation force,
but how many troops do they have altogether? Hard to recruit a
disciplined army of suicide bombers! LOL!!!
Iraq now has 100,000's of men in militias. Thousands have even been
trained by US troops. The US no longer has any control over them.
Well, those are "our" Iraqis after all and, once there are enough of
them to take over the duty, we will be out of there. Soon, I think.
Post by Lobo
Post by M
Disciplined enough to blow themselves up, and be responsible for a large
ongoing loss of life. Whats more it doesn't look like it is likely to come
to an end anytime soon. Not a laughing matter.
Point is they have got considerable more stomach for this than the US
electorate has for losing their soldiers. More US soldiers have lost their
lives while they have been occupying the country than where lost in the
initial battle for Iraq. Like I said in the situation that the US now finds
itself, (and likely to find itself in future conflicts), stealth bombers
and all that other fancy gear ain't worth squat!!
Why do think our boys have been recently sent to Afghanistan. It's because
we have the expertise after 30+ years in Northern Ireland.
Canada has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan and they are doing one hell of
a lot better than the Americans in winning the hearts and minds of the
locals.
Post by M
Regards,
M
BTW, I see the US media are getting the populace worked up over Iran
now. Notice how little press is given to the voices of reason? This is
the administration's work up to the necessity of having 3 or 4
PERMANENT bases in Iraq. Watch the spin from the White House in the
coming months.
I'm betting they can fool the American people twice. They just got to
do a little more fear mongering among the masses and Bush will be back
in control to 'protect' the poor things.
Lobo
2006-04-17 01:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by billwg
Post by Lobo
It certainly wasn't a wasted "lesson". Even countries that had
populations that were once friendly towards the US are now seething
with hatred.
"Seething"? Who would that be, wolfie? You imagine things, to be sure,
just like you think linux will win on the desktop. It will never
happen. Countries are not friendly or unfriendly per se, wolfie, at
least according to the current thinking. They are all looking for
advantage. Knowing that there is a line that cannot be crossed lest the
third herd show up in your capital with your pictures on their card
decks certainly gives a lot of pause to those rugheads that would like
to shake nuclear threats around the Middle East.
Post by Lobo
Post by M
Rubbish, a few days of sustained bombing, couple of local battles and
occupation was in full swing.
The Israeli's put paid to plans that 20 million Arabs had in the 6 day war,
so if the US had not walked over the Iraqi army it would have been a totall
embarrassment.
Post by billwg
It is easy to sit back
and see how your suicide squad can operate under an occupation force,
but how many troops do they have altogether? Hard to recruit a
disciplined army of suicide bombers! LOL!!!
Iraq now has 100,000's of men in militias. Thousands have even been
trained by US troops. The US no longer has any control over them.
Well, those are "our" Iraqis after all and, once there are enough of
them to take over the duty, we will be out of there. Soon, I think.
Watch what happens in the coming years. None of these militias are
particularly partial or friendly towards US domination. They are now
controled by different religious factions, both inside and outside
Iraq.
Post by billwg
Post by Lobo
Post by M
Disciplined enough to blow themselves up, and be responsible for a large
ongoing loss of life. Whats more it doesn't look like it is likely to come
to an end anytime soon. Not a laughing matter.
Point is they have got considerable more stomach for this than the US
electorate has for losing their soldiers. More US soldiers have lost their
lives while they have been occupying the country than where lost in the
initial battle for Iraq. Like I said in the situation that the US now finds
itself, (and likely to find itself in future conflicts), stealth bombers
and all that other fancy gear ain't worth squat!!
Why do think our boys have been recently sent to Afghanistan. It's because
we have the expertise after 30+ years in Northern Ireland.
Canada has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan and they are doing one hell of
a lot better than the Americans in winning the hearts and minds of the
locals.
Post by M
Regards,
M
BTW, I see the US media are getting the populace worked up over Iran
now. Notice how little press is given to the voices of reason? This is
the administration's work up to the necessity of having 3 or 4
PERMANENT bases in Iraq. Watch the spin from the White House in the
coming months.
I'm betting they can fool the American people twice. They just got to
do a little more fear mongering among the masses and Bush will be back
in control to 'protect' the poor things.
Technomage Hawke
2006-04-17 14:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry Qualig
Post by Lobo
Post by n***@wigner.berkeley.edu
I like the part where he says,
"I found out that the US military use Windows!"
You should have made that your subject line.
He he he... I shoulda.....
Post by n***@wigner.berkeley.edu
"I found out that the US military use Windows!"
Scary stuff isn't it?
What's actually scary is that some people (read: you) are unable to
distinguish the difference between private secure channels that the
military uses for tactical communications from a web-site that's on the
public internet. There is a difference... a *huge* difference.
and yet some of those "secure" machines operate over that very same "public"
internet.......
--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6
M
2006-04-13 21:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4715612.stm
Wednesday, 12 April 2006
A British man accused of being behind the largest ever hack of US
government computer networks could end up at Guantanamo Bay, his
lawyer has claimed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4715612.stm
Profile: Gary McKinnon
But Gary McKinnon, or Solo as he was known online, paints a very
different picture of himself, and his motivation. In a BBC interview
last summer, Mr McKinnon said that he was not a malicious hacker bent
on bringing down US military systems, but rather more of a "bumbling
computer nerd".
He said he's no web vandal, or virus writer, and that he never acted
with malicious intent.
But he did admit that he hacked into dozens of US government computer
systems. In fact, he calmly detailed just how easy it was to access
extremely sensitive information in those systems.
"I found out that the US military use Windows," said Mr McKinnon in
that BBC interview. "And having realised this, I assumed it would
probably be an easy hack if they hadn't secured it properly."
Using commercially available software, Mr McKinnon probed dozens of US
military and government networks. He found many machines without
adequate password or firewall protection. So, he simply hacked into
them.
....
Looks to me that the US Authorities are going after the wrong people (as
usual). The person or person(s) that need to be in the dock, are the dorks
that set this system up. If there are machines without adequate password or
firewall protection what do they expect.
Post by Lobo
NOTE: I think the fact that this self proclaimed "bumbling computer
nerd" has managed to hack sensitive US military computers tells me
that other, more sophisticated and dangerous hackers, have ALREADY
gone a lot further.
If the US (or any other government) thinks they can legislate laws
with stiff penalties to prevent their systems from being comprimised,
they are out of touch with reality. They should reward these "bumbling
computer nerds" for showing them how poorly secured they are.
Legislation isn't the answer, the answer is to put someone in charge who has
got more than two brain cells to rub together.

Regards,

M
Lobo
2006-04-13 22:06:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:30:43 GMT, M
Post by M
Post by Lobo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4715612.stm
Wednesday, 12 April 2006
A British man accused of being behind the largest ever hack of US
government computer networks could end up at Guantanamo Bay, his
lawyer has claimed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4715612.stm
Profile: Gary McKinnon
But Gary McKinnon, or Solo as he was known online, paints a very
different picture of himself, and his motivation. In a BBC interview
last summer, Mr McKinnon said that he was not a malicious hacker bent
on bringing down US military systems, but rather more of a "bumbling
computer nerd".
He said he's no web vandal, or virus writer, and that he never acted
with malicious intent.
But he did admit that he hacked into dozens of US government computer
systems. In fact, he calmly detailed just how easy it was to access
extremely sensitive information in those systems.
"I found out that the US military use Windows," said Mr McKinnon in
that BBC interview. "And having realised this, I assumed it would
probably be an easy hack if they hadn't secured it properly."
Using commercially available software, Mr McKinnon probed dozens of US
military and government networks. He found many machines without
adequate password or firewall protection. So, he simply hacked into
them.
....
Looks to me that the US Authorities are going after the wrong people (as
usual). The person or person(s) that need to be in the dock, are the dorks
that set this system up. If there are machines without adequate password or
firewall protection what do they expect.
I wonder if any heads in these departments have rolled?

I doubt they are going to go after the hackers from Iran, North Korea
and other unfriendly states that have installed root kits that cover
their tracks in this weakly secured system. It would be too
embarrassing.
Post by M
Post by Lobo
NOTE: I think the fact that this self proclaimed "bumbling computer
nerd" has managed to hack sensitive US military computers tells me
that other, more sophisticated and dangerous hackers, have ALREADY
gone a lot further.
If the US (or any other government) thinks they can legislate laws
with stiff penalties to prevent their systems from being comprimised,
they are out of touch with reality. They should reward these "bumbling
computer nerds" for showing them how poorly secured they are.
Legislation isn't the answer, the answer is to put someone in charge who has
got more than two brain cells to rub together.
Regards,
M
The fact they are publicizing this also shows me the people in charge
of these departments are not very bright. It tells me (and the world)
that their data has been completely compromised. Increasing penalties
isn't going to stop another nation from hacking them.
High Plains Thumper
2006-04-14 11:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by M
Post by Lobo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4715612.stm
<SNIP>
Post by M
Post by Lobo
But he did admit that he hacked into dozens of US government computer
systems. In fact, he calmly detailed just how easy it was to access
extremely sensitive information in those systems.
"I found out that the US military use Windows," said Mr McKinnon in
that BBC interview. "And having realised this, I assumed it would
probably be an easy hack if they hadn't secured it properly."
Using commercially available software, Mr McKinnon probed dozens of US
military and government networks. He found many machines without
adequate password or firewall protection. So, he simply hacked into
them.
Looks to me that the US Authorities are going after the wrong people (as
usual). The person or person(s) that need to be in the dock, are the dorks
that set this system up. If there are machines without adequate password
or firewall protection what do they expect.
They could put him away and toss the key. However, it would not surprise me
if they strike a plea bargain, and he becomes a paid consultant for
securing their systems. YAGE (yet another good episode) for an Austin
Powers movie?
--
HPT
Hadron Quark
2006-04-15 17:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by High Plains Thumper
Post by M
Post by Lobo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4715612.stm
<SNIP>
Post by M
Post by Lobo
But he did admit that he hacked into dozens of US government computer
systems. In fact, he calmly detailed just how easy it was to access
extremely sensitive information in those systems.
"I found out that the US military use Windows," said Mr McKinnon in
that BBC interview. "And having realised this, I assumed it would
probably be an easy hack if they hadn't secured it properly."
Using commercially available software, Mr McKinnon probed dozens of US
military and government networks. He found many machines without
adequate password or firewall protection. So, he simply hacked into
them.
Looks to me that the US Authorities are going after the wrong people (as
usual). The person or person(s) that need to be in the dock, are the dorks
that set this system up. If there are machines without adequate password
or firewall protection what do they expect.
They could put him away and toss the key. However, it would not surprise me
if they strike a plea bargain, and he becomes a paid consultant for
securing their systems. YAGE (yet another good episode) for an Austin
Powers movie?
I doubt it : he's a second rate sys admin who used common documented
procedures to get into their network and used remotepc or something
similar to crowse around
rapskat
2006-04-14 01:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
NOTE: I think the fact that this self proclaimed "bumbling computer
nerd" has managed to hack sensitive US military computers tells me
that other, more sophisticated and dangerous hackers, have ALREADY
gone a lot further.
Hell, they're probably pissed he got caught and spoiled the fun for
everyone else!
--
rapskat - 21:20:46 up 1 day, 8 min, 1 user, load average: 0.27, 0.38, 0.41
Maintainer's Motto:
If we can't fix it, it ain't broke.
John Bailo
2006-04-16 19:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobo
He said he's no web vandal, or virus writer, and that he never acted
with malicious intent.
But he did admit that he hacked into dozens of US government computer
systems. In fact, he calmly detailed just how easy it was to access
extremely sensitive information in those systems.
It would be extremely easy for me to go into my neighbor's front yard
and tear up all his tulips. I could then say (after they catch me)
that I was just "demonstrating" how easy some real crook would be able
to go into his yard and tear up his tulips.

I would then offer to be a tulip security consultant at $200 per hour
because of my /expertise/ in tulip security. I would advise him to put
razor wire around his yard, and make his tulips out of titanium.

Seriously, this whole business of hackers just wanting to "show us" how
insecure our systems are is ridiculous.

I hope this guy is extradited to the US to get the full penalty for
messing with Texas. And as far as Guantanmo, I say put in Rikers'
Island...just as effective.
Technomage Hawke
2006-04-17 14:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bailo
Post by Lobo
He said he's no web vandal, or virus writer, and that he never acted
with malicious intent.
But he did admit that he hacked into dozens of US government computer
systems. In fact, he calmly detailed just how easy it was to access
extremely sensitive information in those systems.
It would be extremely easy for me to go into my neighbor's front yard
and tear up all his tulips. I could then say (after they catch me)
that I was just "demonstrating" how easy some real crook would be able
to go into his yard and tear up his tulips.
I would then offer to be a tulip security consultant at $200 per hour
because of my /expertise/ in tulip security. I would advise him to put
razor wire around his yard, and make his tulips out of titanium.
Seriously, this whole business of hackers just wanting to "show us" how
insecure our systems are is ridiculous.
I hope this guy is extradited to the US to get the full penalty for
messing with Texas. And as far as Guantanmo, I say put in Rikers'
Island...just as effective.
well,
I can see a further abuse of "the system" here.

suppose someone decides to infect a bunch of machines at a major
corporation. suppose also that one (or more) of these infected hosts
decides to attack my firewall. suppose further still that I initiate a
report (be it phone, or e-mail) and lastly, suppose that I get sued under
DMCA and US anti-hacker laws for filing that report...

think the above won't happen? think again. it already has. :(
--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...