NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1279824,00.html
I have ideas on this, but I'm too tired to share them tonight. In any case, I felt this article was important to post. Buona notte, amici!

bump

Bush needs to come up with something MUCH more radical than WMD to get the country to go along with any invasion of Iran.


Hmm...

The PM of Iran is a Diabolical Evil Psycotic who has nuclear weapons beyond our comprehension and must be taken out immediatly?

Another testimony to American imperialism

iran has a bad history with the usa and anyone who trusts iran is foolish considering that hisoty. Their government has many links to terrorist organizations. I would estimate that they pose the second greatest threat to the world today.A radical islamic dictatorship with the ablility to manufacture nuclear weapons is a very very dangerous thing.

us imperialism? there is no such thing. You cannot name one instance of american imperialism that occured in the last 100 years.

Iran is just another one of a long list of countries that needs to have regime change.

yes

Seeing that Bush was so correct about Iraq having WMD's, I find it hard to believe that anyone would have any basis for questioning his accusations against Iran. :rolleyes:

Iran is just another one of a long list of countries that needs to have regime change.

With the US being #1, I would agree.

Ok, I might as well spit it out now. The US probably wouldn't want nor need to act anytime soon against Iran, at least militarily. However, Israel would. They've bombed Iraq's nuclear plants in 1981, and have hinted that they'd do it again. I can't blame them, as Iran is an avowed enemy of a Jewish state, and may very well use these nukes. However, it'd spark an Iran-Israeli war with grave consequences for the region. Iran's ally, Syria, may get involved, pushing the whole region into war. It'd certainly destabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, presenting lots of problems for US troops. The US, therefore, may have no choice but to invade Iran. They'll interfere in both countries, as well as destabilize the region, possibly forcing an arms race in the Middle East. Besides, Iran is a known supporter of Hizb'Allah, and has supported al-Qaeda in the past. It probably is right now.

iran has a bad history with the usa and anyone who trusts iran is foolish considering that hisoty. Their government has many links to terrorist organizations. I would estimate that they pose the second greatest threat to the world today.A radical islamic dictatorship with the ablility to manufacture nuclear weapons is a very very dangerous thing.
Who poses the first? Ourselves, pehaps?

:) :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

using the logic that america would go to war with iran as soon as it did with iraq would mean an iran-american war would take place in about the year 2016.

With the US being #1, I would agree.
Yes. George Bush is clearly worse than people like Kim Jong Il.

Happy trolling!

Who poses the first? Ourselves, pehaps?

:) :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

north korea does. the united states has saved more lives around the world in its history than the rest of the world combined through war efforts, science, peace keeping efforts ect. WE are the only people to actualy use nukes and we saved lives while we were at it. And if you meant that america is number one in posing a danger to terrorists around the world I would actualy agree.

i wasnt aware that kim jon il set 50 million people free and gave them civil rights. If he did let me know.

I figure he'd invade Iran NOW, if he thought it would ensure he re-election. I'm waiting for George V (his father was VI) to announce that, with Al Quaida probably ready to attack NYC, the elections will be "postponed" until a safer time---like a year or two (or ten?) from now. And no, I'm not all that enthused about Kerry, either, but we need to send Georgie home.

Ok, I might as well spit it out now. The US probably wouldn't want nor need to act anytime soon against Iran, at least militarily. However, Israel would. They've bombed Iraq's nuclear plants in 1981, and have hinted that they'd do it again. I can't blame them, as Iran is an avowed enemy of a Jewish state, and may very well use these nukes. However, it'd spark an Iran-Israeli war with grave consequences for the region. Iran's ally, Syria, may get involved, pushing the whole region into war. It'd certainly destabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, presenting lots of problems for US troops. The US, therefore, may have no choice but to invade Iran. They'll interfere in both countries, as well as destabilize the region, possibly forcing an arms race in the Middle East. Besides, Iran is a known supporter of Hizb'Allah, and has supported al-Qaeda in the past. It probably is right now.
Anyone?

I would estimate that they pose the second greatest threat to the world today.
Second to the US.

there is no possibility of the united states using military options against iran in the presidency of george w. bush. secondly, president bush does not have the power to postpone elections and has never stated that it is a possibility he is considering at all. Don't make things up. I catch people doing that alot.

Number of wars the US should be instigating at this point in time = 0

The only possible exception to this would be Sudan. I hear it's nasty there, but I haven't heard too much about it, as well, genocide in that area of the world never does.

north korea does. the united states has saved more lives around the world in its history than the rest of the world combined through war efforts, science, peace keeping efforts ect. WE are the only people to actualy use nukes and we saved lives while we were at it. And if you meant that america is number one in posing a danger to terrorists around the world I would actualy agree.

Hmm. I would not agree that the us does pose a threat to terrorists.
N. Korea has 5 or 6 Nukes. The're not stupid (much as u may hope), and they arn't going to attack for fear of retaliation (such as the preemptive war in Iraq.).

They're not stupid. They know that nuclear blackmail is a great way to force countries to do what they want, especially ones responsible to the people...

there is no possibility of the united states using military options against iran in the presidency of george w. bush. secondly, president bush does not have the power to postpone elections and has never stated that it is a possibility he is considering at all. Don't make things up. I catch people doing that alot.
Would there be conditions that would force the US to act against Iran?

once again, the usa in the last two years set 50 million people free and gave them civil rights. that is some danger.....North korea on the other hand has been busy keeping the women down, starving its own people, threatening nuclear warfare as a ransom, and has never helped anyone or aided anything exept its small elite.

Would there be conditions that would force the US to act against Iran?
Probably Bush winning the elections.

They're not stupid. They know that nuclear blackmail is a great way to force countries to do what they want, especially ones responsible to the people...
That's why I think that, somehow or another, an invasion against North Korea should be launched soon: to eliminate the threat, and get rid of an irritant in the region. The North Korean army is a joke, and it'd crumble in a week. Occupation, of course, is easy, since Koreans would be the bulk of any invasion force.

Probably Bush winning the elections.
Or an airstrike by Israel.

iraq was not preemptive in a legal sense but that's besides the point. if we rushed into iran ( which we are talking about by the way) the same way we "rushed" into iraq the target date of the war is 2016. I think diplomacy will be our policy unless iran is provably and directly behind an act of terrorism that kills americans directly or if they invade another country that has large oil reserves to take the oil.

That's why I think that, somehow or another, an invasion against North Korea should be launched soon: to eliminate the threat, and get rid of an irritant in the region. The North Korean army is a joke, and it'd crumble in a week. Occupation, of course, is easy, since Koreans would be the bulk of any invasion force.
I agree, the problem is due to Clinton's great diplomacy he managed to let them cheat on the deal and develop nuclear weapons undercover, so for all we know they do have a bomb or two hidden somewhere already...

north korea with nukes is not a prospect i like to think about.

I agree, the problem is due to Clinton's great diplomacy he managed to let them cheat on the deal and develop nuclear weapons undercover, so for all we know they do have a bomb or two hidden somewhere already...
Contingency plans were on the table to bomb sites in North Korea. He should've done it then. Then again, it's not fair to blame it all on Clinton. Any post Cold War president is at fault. Bush Sr. should've done it when both North Korea and Russia were at their weakest.

Contingency plans were on the table to bomb sites in North Korea. He should've done it then. Then again, it's not fair to blame it all on Clinton. Any post Cold War president is at fault. Bush Sr. should've done it when both North Korea and Russia were at their weakest.
I was talking about the appeasement deal we gave to North Korea, where we'd supply them with things (oil, food) and they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons, unfortunately they took our stuff and still developed nuclear weapons (1994 was when it was signed I think).

Although I agree that they should've been taken care of by George HW too.

It may not be constitutionally possible for Bush to postpone elections...but if there's one thing this Administration has shown us, it's that they are more than willing to circumvent/blatantly defy the Constitution in order to do what they please. (and that WMD's can apparently pop into and out of existence more frequently than the quantum vacuum flux, but we'll ignore that for now)

how about you stop bashing bush and talk about the topic we are talking about.actualy, wait one darn minute....

It may not be constitutionally possible for Bush to postpone elections...but if there's one thing this Administration has shown us, it's that they are more than willing to circumvent/blatantly defy the Constitution in order to do what they please. (and that WMD's can apparently pop into and out of existence more frequently than the quantum vacuum flux, but we'll ignore that for now)

name one time the bush administration has not followed the constitution of the united states.

A significant part of the PATRIOT and PATRIOT II acts. That's when.

i only ask for one specific example. just one.

It would be unfair to pin that only on the Admin, though, seeing as how the US Congress had to pass it in the first place and the PAT act was drawn up by a Democrat.

I was talking about the appeasement deal we gave to North Korea, where we'd supply them with things (oil, food) and they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons, unfortunately they took our stuff and still developed nuclear weapons (1994 was when it was signed I think).

Although I agree that they should've been taken care of by George HW too.


Russia did not reach its weakest point until 1998 during the latter half of Clinton, with the rouble collapsing in value and inflation skyrocketing that year... George HW had enough on his plate with the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe in 1989-1990, Persian Gulf 1, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991...North Korea seemed to be neglected until 1994.

North Korea is scary because they have a million-man army to which 1/4th of the economy is devoted...a dictator who is actually considered to be mad... and now nuclear weapons. They have to realize that the US would probably not be willing to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for say a strike on Tokyo (which would screw up the World's economic stability) for fear of killing a whole hell of alot of people in South Korea via radiation, as well as China...which has a 2 million man army and missiles capable of hitting everyone (though not many) and raise a hornet's nest of hell..

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

So, when US citizens (or immigrants, to whom the Bill of Rights still applies) have their property searched either without a warrant (happens), or with a warrant that basically says "looking for items that could be related to terrorism," Amendment IV is violated. When they are detained immediately without a trial or charges, Amendments V and VI are violated. Simple as that. This can all occur under the PATRIOT and PATRIOT II acts, and Big Brother Ashcroft does these things (indirectly) all the time.

"except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger" *cough*

"In all criminal prosecutions* cough*

and besides, there is not a single example of a person being arrested without a warrent of some kind. You just want to dislike the president in as many ways as possible. we are talking about *iran* now...

I just wish I knew when the Americans are going to stop this madness they have seem to come under. Stay in your own borders, stop making foreign policy, become isolationists again, please! Pull out of the UN, all international law. Live for yourselves, please leave the world alone, I bet you $100 that you'll stop being attacked if you do. Leave other nations the hell alone! Man, I'm so getting tired of this.

It's America's moral duty as the sole superpower to help the world and get involved in foreign affairs.

I just wish I knew when the Americans are going to stop this madness they have seem to come under. Stay in your own borders, stop making foreign policy, become isolationists again, please! Pull out of the UN, all international law. Live for yourselves, please leave the world alone, I bet you $100 that you'll stop being attacked if you do. Leave other nations the hell alone! Man, I'm so getting tired of this.
do i wish the usa had stayed in its borders during ww1 or ww2? no. do is wish we hadnt stood up ( with policy) to the soviets? no. do i want to pull out of the UN? yes. and by the way, if the usa did just what you want iran ( which we are talking about by the way) would prove to be a menace very quickly. also, I concur that we should not have given 50 million middle easterners civil rights.you must be right.( not)

It's America's moral duty as the sole superpower to help the world and get involved in foreign affairs.

No it's not. Protect yourselves, in your own borders, leave the rest of the world to fend for it's self.. really.. that's what I wish.

No it's not. Protect yourselves, in your own borders, leave the rest of the world to fend for it's self.. really.. that's what I wish.
Good. You live in a country with one of the highest living standards in the world. If we allow the people of Sudan, Iran, North Korea, or any of the other horrible countries in the world to suffer, when we can be doing something - or trying to do something - then its on our shoulders.

do i wish the usa had stayed in its borders during ww1 or ww2? no.and by the way, if the usa did just what you want iran ( which we are talking about by the way) would prove to be a menace very quickly.

we invented nukes and are the only people to have used them responsibly to save lives. you bet your life we have a say in who gets them.

we invented nukes and are the only people to have used them responsibly to save lives. you bet your life we have a say in who gets them.

Actually you're the only people to ever use them period other then tests.. spare me.

I have to leave this thread or I will implode! :headbang:

and we used them responsibly.

imploding ( or exploding) is not healthy.

we invented nukes and are the only people to have used them responsibly to save lives. you bet your life we have a say in who gets them.

Using a nuke "responsibly" is like beating your wife "carefully".... it's still not right.

And your idea only holds up if we were to assume that you somehow have some ongoing monopoly on common sense. Frankly, I think you will have a hard time selling that concept.

No it's not. Protect yourselves, in your own borders, leave the rest of the world to fend for it's self.. really.. that's what I wish.

Alot of us wish we could go back to 1937 style foreign policy...where we did circle wagons and defend ourselves..but we hear cries for aid when we don't intervene...we watch on television the suffering of people under tyranny. We see that if good men stand idle...tyrants do rise and do great wrongs...and we look at ourselves with all our might, and all our ideals and say... "Someone has to protect the free peoples of this earth... and we are the only ones that seem to have that ability...it is up to us now...lest tyrants rise again"

And thus we stood up against the Soviet Union...because that was the attitude we adopted in 1946...and since then...though at times sinking low to fufill that duty and shaming ourselves, we have stayed the course and I think...fought the good fight.

Steph, I admire you're idealism and wishes...and I wish the world worked well, but it doesn't...and all the alternatives seem worse.

we invented nukes and are the only people to have used them responsibly to save lives. you bet your life we have a say in who gets them.
We also invented the light bulb, the airplane (err, the first working one), the assembly line, tons of other things, but we didn't really have a say in who does and doesn't get those things do we?

Using a nuke "responsibly" is like beating your wife "carefully".... it's still not right.

And your idea only holds up if we were to assume that you somehow have some ongoing monopoly on common sense. Frankly, I think you will have a hard time selling that concept.
By that logic, no weapons can be used responsibly.

I'd give up 50,000 American lives, including my own, to save 50 million in another country. Since the Fall of Communism, the USA, along with other countries, has intervened in numerous places : Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Afghanistan Haiti, and now most recently Iraq. Some of these interventions have been more successful than others (Rwanda and Somalia, both UN-run, being the two biggest failures). It may be that for the most part, we either help countries out of our own self interest or only help them after being dragged through the UN (Rwanda). However, the latest two, Haiti and Iraq, have no big benifits to us right now and neither were UN-Sanctioned (Neither was the actions in Yugoslavia or Bosnia, for that matter). Once we take out someone like Saddam or Aristide, we have to help rebuild the country, or else it's probably going to be no better off than before (See Haiti 1994).

The fact of the matter is, this is the most interdependent the world has ever been. I think trade has surpassed its previous high (1914) - when most of the world was owned by a handful of countries. To expect isolationism to work is foolish now. As to the nuclear weapons thing, of course we can say what country has the right to have nukes and which one dosen't. Thats like saying a smoker can't tell you the bad effects of smoking because he smoked. Only a few countries in the world have nuclear weapons now, there's no need to increase the number.

Using a nuke "responsibly" is like beating your wife "carefully".... it's still not right.

And your idea only holds up if we were to assume that you somehow have some ongoing monopoly on common sense. Frankly, I think you will have a hard time selling that concept.

we are talking about iran..................i have no trouble" selling" the notion
that nukes in their hands is dangerous. and the only reason i am here is because of nukes. sounds funny i know. But my grandfather was told in the us marines that he was to be in the first wave of the invasion of japan. Expected casualty rate 100%. estimates from independent sources put the death toll in japan and in american armed forces inside the millions range. The atomic bomb prevented this. it harmed, including radiation sickness years later a maximum of about half of what it would have been had we not had the bomb......so i dont know how you compare that to wife beating and i do know it was responsible.

iran would be the first to abuse an isolationist policy

north korea does. the united states has saved more lives around the world in its history than the rest of the world combined through war efforts, science, peace keeping efforts ect. WE are the only people to actualy use nukes and we saved lives while we were at it. And if you meant that america is number one in posing a danger to terrorists around the world I would actualy agree.


The US has been the indirect cause of terrorism for the last 20 years. For example, they originally backed BOTH Saddam Hussien, and Bin Laden, by supplying them with weapons, funds and training.

Yes. George Bush is clearly worse than people like Kim Jong Il.

Happy trolling!

Hmm... number of countries that Kim Jong Il has invaded lately on the basis of (at best) questionable intelligence would include?

However, the latest two, Haiti and Iraq, have no big benifits to us right now
err...yea, oil is useless to America.

I don't see the price of gas going down much since the invasion of Iraq...

next catchy conspiracy slogan please...

and that excuses terrorism no?

How much oil is America getting directly from Iraq. They're still a part of OPEC, so we're still paying OPEC's price for it. Gas prices are higher now than they were before the war.

and yes, that no blood for oil thing really hasnt come out of anyones mouth lately has it...

the USA, along with other countries, has intervened in numerous places : Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Afghanistan Haiti, and now most recently Iraq. Some of these interventions have been more successful than others (Rwanda and Somalia, both UN-run, being the two biggest failures).


The US did not intervene in Rwanda though. No one did and that was the problem.

How much oil is America getting directly from Iraq. They're still a part of OPEC, so we're still paying OPEC's price for it. Gas prices are higher now than they were before the war.
OPEC do not set oil prices. OPEC set production quotas in member countries and prices are determined in open market exchange.

Hmm... number of countries that Kim Jong Il has invaded lately on the basis of (at best) questionable intelligence would include?
None. He's also taken out 0 brutal dictators. He happens to be one though, causing famine in his country (giving all of the food to the military), forcing the majority of the people in North Korea to experience hell on earth.

err...yea, oil is useless to America.

really, last i checked america was down a few billion dollars because of iraq and we had improved the amount of oil iraq was putting out for everyone to have while at the same time not "stealing" any for ourselves ( as the no blood for oil sign people actualy expected).

The US did not intervene in Rwanda though. No one did and that was the problem.
They did but it was too late. I think there was a case of Dutch (or was it Irish?) inspectors in a village close to where one massacre took place, but yet no action was taken. No effective intervention happened.

The US did not intervene in Rwanda though. No one did and that was the problem.

clinton....( d'oh)

goodnight all

We may or may not be "stealing" oil from Iraq for ourselves, but you've got to admit that having a regime that isn't condemned by the UN in power in Iraq would be better for oil prices on the whole. Iraq isn't going to be restricted to any silly "Oil for Food" programs any more. It'll be open trade. Also, since it will be an American-friendly government (our troops won't leave until it is), it'll be open to American contracting (which is another benefit we have in invading Iraq) which could improve Iraq's oil output capacity.[/common sense]

They did but it was too late. I think there was a case of Dutch (or was it Irish?) inspectors in a village close to where one massacre took place, but yet no action was taken. No effective intervention happened.

The french had some military personnel on the ground in Rwanda and they pulled out in the first days of the massacre taking only french nationals with them. No one else intervened till after the massacres stopped.

We may or may not be "stealing" oil from Iraq for ourselves, but you've got to admit that having a regime that isn't condemned by the UN in power in Iraq would be better for oil prices on the whole. Iraq isn't going to be restricted to any silly "Oil for Food" programs any more. It'll be open trade. Also, since it will be an American-friendly government (our troops won't leave until it is), it'll be open to American contracting (which is another benefit we have in invading Iraq) which could improve Iraq's oil output capacity.[/common sense]

So why would Bush invade for his oil tycoon "cohorts" if any benefits would not happen at least until after the election...and most likely not take real shape until after his second term ended (IF he is reelected)?

We may or may not be "stealing" oil from Iraq for ourselves, but you've got to admit that having a regime that isn't condemned by the UN in power in Iraq would be better for oil prices on the whole.
Reducing demand through renewable energy sources and the banning of certain types of motor vehicle would have a more positive effect on oil prices. Demand could also be reduced by nuking Japan into the stone age but thats not sensible either.

Also, since it will be an American-friendly government (our troops won't leave until it is), it'll be open to American contracting (which is another benefit we have in invading Iraq) which could improve Iraq's oil output capacity.[/common sense]

self centred intervention is exactly what generates anti US feeling in the rest of the world and makes genuine humanitarian cases more subject to scepticism.

Reducing demand through renewable energy sources and the banning of certain types of motor vehicle would have a more positive effect on oil prices. Demand could also be reduced by nuking Japan into the stone age but thats not sensible either.
True.



self centred intervention is exactly what generates anti US feeling in the rest of the world and makes genuine humanitarian cases more subject to scepticism.
Also true.



The point wasn't that attacking Iraq was the best idea in the world. The point was that there was something to gain in invading Iraq. I'm all for alternative fuels and respecting the countries of the world (yes, including France).

So why would Bush invade for his oil tycoon "cohorts" if any benefits would not happen at least until after the election...and most likely not take real shape until after his second term ended (IF he is reelected)?
(psst...they're going to benefit whether or not Bush is in office...they don't lose their stock or whatever ties they have when Bush leaves office)

The french had some military personnel on the ground in Rwanda and they pulled out in the first days of the massacre taking only french nationals with them. No one else intervened till after the massacres stopped.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3840345.stm
1994: Foreign intervention fails to prevent genocide of 800,000 people in Rwanda.


http://www.selfdetermine.org/conflicts/rwanda.html
Also : Belgium withdrew its contingent from the UN force at the beginning of the genocide, and the few remaining UN troops were never mandated by the UN Security Council to prevent the killings.
So there was some there (a few) but the USA (and the West in General) failed to do anything with that small contingent, or expand it in a reasonable way, it was failed.

. I'm all for alternative fuels and respecting the countries of the world (yes, including France).

Hey lets not be silly and respect the French. The only incident of terrorism in this country was perpetrated by agents of the French government and i will never forgive them.

Hey lets not be silly and respect the French. The only incident of terrorism in this country was perpetrated by agents of the French government and i will never forgive them.
Fine...be an absurd jerk. (...Opal Isle can trace his geneology to French kings and Charlemagne)

So there was some there (a few) but the USA (and the West in General) failed to do anything with that small contingent, or expand it in a reasonable way, it was failed.

I dotn think that the handfull of observers on the ground counts as intervention.

(psst...they're going to benefit whether or not Bush is in office...they don't lose their stock or whatever ties they have when Bush leaves office)

So why would he risk sacrificing his presidency for them if that is the case? He's got more money already then he'll ever need to begin with...I'd think he'd rather stay in office...

So why would he risk sacrificing his presidency for them if that is the case? He's got more money already then he'll ever need to begin with...I'd think he'd rather stay in office...
Well...I'm not so sure he felt like it'd be risking his presidency...

Fine...be an absurd jerk. (...Opal Isle can trace his geneology to French kings and Charlemagne)

mmmm i cant really see you forgiving the Islamic terrorists for 9/11 so i dont see why i should forgive the french. The french ordered members of their secret service to plant a bomb that resulted in loss of life in my home town then they proceeded to use diplomatic pressure to have the culprits released from captivity.

Oh yeah ..... Charlemagne was German.

mmmm i cant really see you forgiving the Islamic terrorists for 9/11 so i dont see why i should forgive the french. The french ordered members of their secret service to plant a bomb that resulted in loss of life in my home town then they proceeded to use diplomatic pressure to have the culprits released from captivity.
You wanna link us to an article or something?

Oh yeah ..... Charlemagne was German.
Err, I thought he was French...oh well...there weren't really nationalities when he was around anyway...

You wanna link us to an article or something?


Err, I thought he was French...oh well...there weren't really nationalities when he was around anyway...

Happy to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/3/newsid_2538000/2538099.stm

After first denying the agents were in their employ, French Prime Minister Laurent Fabius finally admitted in September the French secret service had ordered the attack on the Rainbow Warrior.
It was widely believed the two captured French agents were part of a larger team and had played only minor roles in the bombing but nobody else was ever tried for the offences.

Mafart and Prieur were sentenced to ten years imprisonment for Mr Pereira's manslaughter and seven years for arson.

In 1986 they were transferred to a French jurisdiction to serve their terms but by May 1988 both had been released.

Now I know you're not making stuff up...however (where do you live...?), read up on the CIA and EVERYTHING they've done and see who deserves more respect then...

And on top of that...do you respect Italy? Germany? Japan? any country that ever made an attack on your country?

the history of the CIA is despicable but they never blew up anyone here so i am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. I live in Auckland New Zealand and i can assure you that french government agents planted a bomb in the harbour causing the sinking of a ship and the murder of one crew member.

And on top of that...do you respect Italy? Germany? Japan? any country that ever made an attack on your country?

Germany never invaded NZ and neither has italy, we have invaded them but that was during the course of mutually declared war and while war is despicable (my word of the day i think) i tend to think it is at least morally defensible.

the history of the CIA is despicable but they never blew up anyone here so i am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. I live in Auckland New Zealand and i can assure you that french government agents planted a bomb in the harbour causing the sinking of a ship and the murder of one crew member.
So, to clarify your logic...

CIA = Uber-bad and pulls crap like this one story of the French govnernment you have all the time.

France = Sinks a ship in harbor at New Zealand killing one, ONE crew member...

You = live in New Zealand.

France = the incident in New Zealand

CIA = Lots of incidents like that, just none in New Zealand

You = live in New Zealand, therefore since the French have attacked your country and the CIA hasn't, the French deserve less respect than the Americans...and the CIA gets the benefit of the doubt.

Are we understanding each other?

So, to clarify your logic...

CIA = Uber-bad and pulls crap like this one story of the French govnernment you have all the time.

France = Sinks a ship in harbor at New Zealand killing one, ONE crew member...

You = live in New Zealand.

France = the incident in New Zealand

CIA = Lots of incidents like that, just none in New Zealand

You = live in New Zealand, therefore since the French have attacked your country and the CIA hasn't, the French deserve less respect than the Americans...and the CIA gets the benefit of the doubt.

Are we understanding each other?
well i dont actually respect the CIA i am just not quite so openly antagonistic towards them. There is after all a time and a place for everything. You also seem to imply that the loss of one life is insignificant or unimportant and i find that quite despicable.

well i dont actually respect the CIA i am just not quite so openly antagonistic towards them. There is after all a time and a place for everything.
So...right now is just more hip to think the US is cool but France isn't?

You also seem to imply that the loss of one life is insignificant or unimportant and i find that quite despicable.
I didn't imply that. What I implied is that 1 New Zealander dieing isn't that much when you compare it to all the shit the CIA has done. It would be kind of like you pointing out how many people Saddam killed, then me saying... "Meh, think about Hitler and Stalin..." All of the sudden, those 300,000 Kurds don't seem like that many any more do they? It doesn't mean they're insignificant. It's just that 300,000/6,000,000 (5%) (and that's only counting the Jews that Hitler killed) (and Stalin killed more people than Hitler anyway...) doesn't seem like that much...

By your logic, catching murderers is just as important as catching bin Laden. (bin Laden is about on par with the CIA and the murderer is about on par with the French...)

you are absolutely right, i do think that catching a one off murderer is just as important as catching OBL. Murder is wrong, scale is unimportant.

As for hating the cia, my only concern is that i would have to cite reasons why and i cant be bothered doing that right now. The french on the other hand are an easy target for me due to my particular circumstances.

you are absolutely right, i do think that catching a one off murderer is just as important as catching OBL. Murder is wrong, scale is unimportant.

As for hating the cia, my only concern is that i would have to cite reasons why and i cant be bothered doing that right now. The french on the other hand are an easy target for me due to my particular circumstances.
There's enough general, unquestioned reasons to dislike the US Government and the things the CIA has done...

The McCarthy era with all the crap against communism (not that I'm advocating communism)...
but they were locking up people for being "communist sympathisers" and not only that, but they were piddling around with foreign governments in an effort to fight communism. The Taliban were in power in Afghanistan because of the CIA. The Mujahideen (which Osama was a part of at the time) got their weapons and training from the CIA. Saddam Hussein was put in place because of the CIA. Castro was put in place because of the CIA (and then the CIA wasted the lives of agents and others trying to take Castro out). I'm sure there are lots of other things to dislike about the CIA, but all of those are unquestionable.

And like with the situation of the dead New Zealander, I'm not saying the one murder victim is unimportant, but Osama is clearly far more dangerous and should be our number one priority...

well i dont actually respect the CIA i am just not quite so openly antagonistic towards them. There is after all a time and a place for everything. You also seem to imply that the loss of one life is insignificant or unimportant and i find that quite despicable.

While you on the other hand are being rather parochial (I am also a New Zealander). I am certainly not fond of the French (which is to say the French Government rather than the general population) but it is not dispcable to say that someone who kills 1000 people is worse than someone who kills one person. I am inclined to believe that the sort of parochialism which you are displaying is dispicable. Charlemagne was, before becoming Holy Roman Emperor, the King of the Franks.

Charlemagne was, before becoming Holy Roman Emperor, the King of the Franks.
I thought so. Thanks. (I didn't feel like googling because it wasn't that important, but thanks.)

While you on the other hand are being rather parochial (I am also a New Zealander). I am certainly not fond of the French (which is to say the French Government rather than the general population) but it is not dispcable to say that someone who kills 1000 people is worse than someone who kills one person. I am inclined to believe that the sort of parochialism which you are displaying is dispicable. Charlemagne was, before becoming Holy Roman Emperor, the King of the Franks.
One has to hold prejudices against something or someone. Anyway, the Franks were Germans, the fact that they migrated to what is now France is irrelevant.

I'm not saying the one murder victim is unimportant, but Osama is clearly far more dangerous and should be our number one priority...
The reasons for catching OBL are sound but based on potential future harm rather than on the scale of past attrocities. (well thats the way i see it but i am a hopeless idealist I am sure the good folks in the whitehouse are more interested in A-revenge and B- a boost in the polls)

One has to hold prejudices against something or someone. Anyway, the Franks were Germans, the fact that they migrated to what is nor France is irrelevant.
If the Franks became the French (despite being in the geographical area of Germany), and Charlemagne was king of them (which probably meant he was one), I would say that qualifies Charlemagne as being French, even if it was in the geographic area of present day Germany (which didn't exist then...).

France took its name from the Frankish tribe but there were many other waves of migration nefore you could define a French nationality or language. Anyway, where is that that hijack cannon you were talking about, this is getting further and further from the thread topic.

France took its name from the Frankish tribe but there were many other waves of migration nefore you could define a French nationality or language. Anyway, where is that that hijack cannon you were talking about, this is getting further and further from the thread topic.
You called him German...
There was no such thing as Germany until, what, mid-19th century? And when did Charlemagne rule? (I'm not positive when, but...long time ago) Anyway, nationalism didn't exist until after Charlemagne ruled...so if you want to argue that he wasn't French because France didn't exist yet is kind of...uh, yea...

Ok, I might as well spit it out now. The US probably wouldn't want nor need to act anytime soon against Iran, at least militarily. However, Israel would. They've bombed Iraq's nuclear plants in 1981, and have hinted that they'd do it again. I can't blame them, as Iran is an avowed enemy of a Jewish state, and may very well use these nukes. However, it'd spark an Iran-Israeli war with grave consequences for the region. Iran's ally, Syria, may get involved, pushing the whole region into war. It'd certainly destabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, presenting lots of problems for US troops. The US, therefore, may have no choice but to invade Iran. They'll interfere in both countries, as well as destabilize the region, possibly forcing an arms race in the Middle East. Besides, Iran is a known supporter of Hizb'Allah, and has supported al-Qaeda in the past. It probably is right now.
OH............ and guess what country is in the middle of any possible Iran/Israeli conflict......ummmm....oh yeah.....IRAQ!!!

This is just insanity!! The US must be running low on volunteers, and the troops deployed in Iraq were deployed longer than normal.

Perhaps Michael Moore will have to go back to Washington to help the government to signup the sons and daughters of Congressmen?

Actually...I remember saying something a long time ago...

I thought...

Okay, we've got Afghanistan...we're about to go into Iraq **looks at map**

Iran is next no doubt about it. Look at a map.

You called him German...
There was no such thing as Germany until, what, mid-19th century? And when did Charlemagne rule? (I'm not positive when, but...long time ago) Anyway, nationalism didn't exist until after Charlemagne ruled...so if you want to argue that he wasn't French because France didn't exist yet is kind of...uh, yea...

The Franks were a German tribe because there was a definite German ethnicity and language well before the existence of a german state and they were part of both. Anyway, i am bored of this. Bye.

While the US is making sandcastles, the Chinese are eyeing Taiwan?

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=189&language_id=1

The perceived erosion of American power has led to a loss of U.S. power since other states potentially hostile to U.S. interests now believe that Washington will be less likely to directly challenge them. This belief is evident in China's recent posturing over Taiwan, where Beijing is challenging American resolve in East Asia by intensifying its threats toward Taipei.

This site is actually fairly good regarding developments in the Middle East, and other significant areas in the world (http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_region&region_id=18&language_id=1).

Here is an article from last years US invasion of Iraq, that pretty much verifies what has been written in this Forum:

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=28&language_id=1

There is a wealth of material on this site.

read up on the CIA and EVERYTHING they've done and see who deserves more respect then...
Wasn't there something with drug trafficing from East Asia and South America?

Suggesting war with Iran is foolish, irresponsible and dangerous.
Trying to draw a parallel with Iraq and Afghanistan is unrealistic.

Afghanistan:
25 million people
Ravaged by 25 years of war.
The taliban were looking more lika a big mafia organisation than a real army.
The Northern alliance was already fighting there.

Iraq:
25 million people
Ravaged by 4 years of war and 12 years of sanctions.
Under UN control, not allowed to develop effective weapons.
No functioning air force.

Iran:
70 million people
Well equiped army.
Supported by Russia.
Soon to be a nuclear power.

Which fool would like to see a war happen?

Afghanistan:
25 million people
Ravaged by 25 years of war.
The taliban were looking more lika a big mafia organisation than a real army.
The Northern alliance was already fighting there.

The Northern Alliance did their fair share of drug dealing.

us imperialism? there is no such thing. You cannot name one instance of american imperialism that occured in the last 100 years.

The US takeover of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, for example. And what of MacArthur's response when the Japanese forces overran the Philippines? "We'll be back?" That's what all colonial powers say when they've been drove out of their colonies, eg. handover of Hong Kong on July 1, 1997... the Brit guy also said "We'll be back" at the flag-changing ceremony.

The US gave the Philippines independence AFTER the Second World War because it become too expensive to maintain the colony. Same reason they abandoned Subic Bay in the first place...

The Northern Alliance did their fair share of drug dealing.
You find everything in the northern alliance. Dictators, drug dealers, mafia, foreign armies, religious extremist leaders.

Actually Afghanistan was a complete anarchy. The war was won easily by the well more organised and equiped internationnal coalition.

Anyone who think invading Iran is the same as invading Afghanistan is a fool.

Actually Afghanistan was a complete anarchy.

Sounds like something Letila would have enjoyed. :D

Russia did not reach its weakest point until 1998 during the latter half of Clinton, with the rouble collapsing in value and inflation skyrocketing that year... George HW had enough on his plate with the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe in 1989-1990, Persian Gulf 1, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991...North Korea seemed to be neglected until 1994.

North Korea is scary because they have a million-man army to which 1/4th of the economy is devoted...a dictator who is actually considered to be mad... and now nuclear weapons. They have to realize that the US would probably not be willing to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for say a strike on Tokyo (which would screw up the World's economic stability) for fear of killing a whole hell of alot of people in South Korea via radiation, as well as China...which has a 2 million man army and missiles capable of hitting everyone (though not many) and raise a hornet's nest of hell..
I have my doubts, however, that North Korea is a threat to regional stability. Sure, their leader is mad, and they have nukes. But how many are there, and more importantly, what missile silos have they loaded them into? They don't seem sophisticated enough to build a silo without the world knowing about it, making it an easy target. Plus, in the opening hours of any war, the North Koreans would be pushed from the DMZ. Why? Their crucial artillery peices are grouped too heavily along the DMZ, and can be destroyed easily. However, just in case Kim Jong-Il does get into another instability fit, and does something stupid like nuke Seoul, it's best to take him out. Otherwise, the greatest threat he poses is to his own people.
BTW, since this is at the forefront of so many discussions on war nowadays, occupation should be easy. There's a half a million South Korean troops that'll be stationed in an area about the size of Mississippi. Plus, both the occupier and occupied are Korean, so that should help smooth violence.

Ok, so no one seems to be listening to me. I'll just sum up briefly that, in a year or two, when Iran gets the bomb, Israel will feel threatened and bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. This will provoke a war between the two, and since the US is heavily involved in that region, it'll have to mediate the conflict, if not choose sides. It certainly won't be Iran that we choose, that's for sure.

bump

Ok, so no one seems to be listening to me. I'll just sum up briefly that, in a year or two, when Iran gets the bomb, Israel will feel threatened and bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. This will provoke a war between the two, and since the US is heavily involved in that region, it'll have to mediate the conflict, if not choose sides. It certainly won't be Iran that we choose, that's for sure.

Israeli F-15s can't reach Iran, though. At least, they can't get more than 20% through the country at maximum range. They'd have no time for combat if they wanted to actually hit much.

If they have something a bit longer range... well, I'll be in my bunker once Iran gets The Bomb.

Israeli F-15s can't reach Iran, though. At least, they can't get more than 20% through the country at maximum range. They'd have no time for combat if they wanted to actually hit much.

If they have something a bit longer range... well, I'll be in my bunker once Iran gets The Bomb.
I'd think Israel would have something a bit longer range, though. After all, Israel has an extremely advanced military.
Besides, there's always missiles that they can use. They are well within range of an Israeli missile of some sort.

I just found out, btw, that the Kufir jet has a range of 2,000 mi. Their replacements, the Lavi jets, could go further, but I can't find specifications.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/weapons.htm

bump

Actually...I remember saying something a long time ago...

I thought...

Okay, we've got Afghanistan...we're about to go into Iraq **looks at map**

Iran is next no doubt about it. Look at a map.
Did anyone read and think about this post?

Actually...I remember saying something a long time ago...

I thought...

Okay, we've got Afghanistan...we're about to go into Iraq **looks at map**

Iran is next no doubt about it. Look at a map.
http://www.politicsol.com/gifs/map-south-asia2.jpg
...

Afghanistan (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html)

Iran (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html)

Iraq (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html)

iran has a bad history with the usa and anyone who trusts iran is foolish considering that hisoty. Their government has many links to terrorist organizations. I would estimate that they pose the second greatest threat to the world today.A radical islamic dictatorship with the ablility to manufacture nuclear weapons is a very very dangerous thing.


Im sorry, but does this sound exactly like we heard about Iraq?

We all know how that went dont we?

Isnt it odd that we are once again looking at Bush, who wants to invade, yet another soveriegn nation in the name of some phantom weapons that dont exist?

Why isnt Bush talking about North Korea?
We KNOW they have nukes....but we arent telling THEM to behave are we?


Jesus Christ!

Vote Kerry if you want to avoid a nuclear war.

Jesus Christ!
Yes?

Vote Kerry if you want to avoid a nuclear war.
But ONOES!! What if he's the Manchurian candidate?!![/idiocy.]

The article said nothing about a so-called 'invasion'. Surgical strikes yes, but the United States cannot handle another full-scale war so soon. Perhaps some of you might understand this. Plus, diplomatic relations are still in full swing at this point. Tehran may very well agree to end its nuclear project at any time.

Bush/Cheney 2004

The article said nothing about a so-called 'invasion'. Surgical strikes yes, but the United States cannot handle another full-scale war so soon. Perhaps some of you might understand this. Plus, diplomatic relations are still in full swing at this point. Tehran may very well agree to end its nuclear project at any time.

Bush/Cheney 2004


No..it said "unilateral action, with or without support".

That means bombings. Many of them.

Bush wants to invade yet ANOTHER country, and is going to get us into a nuclear war, if he wins this next election.

basically we are launching ww3 and I can gurantee if we see such a war it will be the end or at least far more horrific than the past with our technologies (bombs capable of destroying a state rather than city etc.) and of course the whole draft thing. IT may start with and be focused on the middle east but throw in north korea,china and the Euros who don't seem to care and or are corrupt and we have problems. Iran is one screwed up place might I add but war I do not think is a must other things should be tried and war avoided at best efforts! I believe the people of Iran unlike Iraq will join us some of them anyway such as the student movements in fighting their evil government, a damn mess all of it!

actually john kerry could very well bring about ww3 just as much so or worse so than bush. He'd also cause a trade war in the economic area of life and of course would further his noble cause of spreading and instilling socialism here and abroad along with one monstrous government to rule the world

IN the end we are all just really screwed. :(

1. Of, on, relating to, involving, or affecting only one side: “a unilateral advantage in defense” (New Republic).
2. Performed or undertaken by only one side: unilateral disarmament.
3. Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations, or persons, as a contract or an agreement.
4. Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.
5. Having only one side.
6. Tracing the lineage of one parent only: a unilateral genealogy.
7. Botany. Having leaves, flowers, or other parts on one side only.

The above was taken from dictionary.com regarding unilateral. I fail to see the definition "Many bombings" anywhere in the above.

Options include "surgical strikes" or covert action by special forces.

This is what the article said, regarding Western action. It also had this to say:

Israel, Washington's ally, has also been stoking the fire. It is suggested there that if the west fails to act against Iran in timely fashion, Israel could strike pre-emptively as it did against Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981, although whether it has the capability to launch effective strikes is uncertain.

You are willing to overlook Isreal's willingness to act if Washington procrastinates on the subject, just to fuel the hate for George W. Bush?

Also, you again say that America wishes to invade another country. America is not able to go through with another invasion so soon, so the only mobilization you will see on the Western front are Navy Seals and Army Rangers.

actually john kerry could very well bring about ww3 just as much so or worse so than bush. He'd also cause a trade war in the economic area of life and of course would further his noble cause of spreading and instilling socialism here and abroad along with one monstrous government to rule the world

IN the end we are all just really screwed. :(


You are right in saying that Kerry could justr as easily start a nuclear war, but you have to realize that it just wouldnt happen.
Kery isnt going to send the country to war over oil.
He has his Democratic Party to answer to.

Democrats arent Oil Barons, and wouldnt make money becuase of it.

Bush is, and will.

Anyone?

ill agree something needs to be done with iran.
But the extent of invading, i dont kno if that is justified in this instance.
They have a huge democratic movement that just got stifled in the last election, but i want to see how much those people are going to push for that. Imagine a democratic iran, without american intervention? That could be all we need to bring stability into the middle east.
If anything they need to blow up the nuclear reactors.
I still dont trust iran having nukes, BUT i would have to say that if they already had them, we should by no means invade, lest we risk getting dirty bombs for years to come from all sorts of hardline muslim groups.

You are right in saying that Kerry could justr as easily start a nuclear war, but you have to realize that it just wouldnt happen.
Kery isnt going to send the country to war over oil.
He has his Democratic Party to answer to.

Democrats arent Oil Barons, and wouldnt make money becuase of it.

Bush is, and will.

You still think bush went to war over oil?
Your fooling yourself.
Oil is a great benefit from the war, but not the reason for war.
As someone else put it, everytime we buy iraqui oil, we help them rebuild.

us imperialism? there is no such thing. You cannot name one instance of american imperialism that occured in the last 100 years. Vietnam, Iraq, Haiti, Cuba, Grenada, South Korea, Panama, Philippines, Nicaragua, Chile....

north korea does. the united states has saved more lives around the world in its history than the rest of the world combined through war efforts, science, peace keeping efforts ect. WE are the only people to actualy use nukes and we saved lives while we were at it. And if you meant that america is number one in posing a danger to terrorists around the world I would actualy agree. American peacekeeping? You mean like Korea and Vietnam? :rolleyes:

That's why I think that, somehow or another, an invasion against North Korea should be launched soon: to eliminate the threat, and get rid of an irritant in the region. The North Korean army is a joke, and it'd crumble in a week. Occupation, of course, is easy, since Koreans would be the bulk of any invasion force. Yeah, who cares about the millions of Korean civilians that would be killed in the process?

Maybe if we get lucky, the DPRK might even lob a nuke or two into Japan.


Really, you people live in a fantasy world....

I agree, the problem is due to Clinton's great diplomacy he managed to let them cheat on the deal and develop nuclear weapons undercover, so for all we know they do have a bomb or two hidden somewhere already... Meanwhile, North Korea has admitted it is building nukes but Bush pretends the problem doesn't even exist...

Meanwhile, North Korea had admitted it is building nukes and Bush pretends the problem doesn't even exist...
Haven't been keeping up with the news? Ever since we heard about it, we tried to get six-way (multilateral) talks going and we did and have, although I don't know the status of them right now.

How much oil is America getting directly from Iraq. They're still a part of OPEC, so we're still paying OPEC's price for it. Gas prices are higher now than they were before the war. Under Saddam, Iraq's couldn't export much oil due to sanctions. With Saddam gone, Iraq's oil industry is open to the West. The US needs to end its dependence on Saudi oil and opening the Iraqi market up is the first step.

Haven't been keeping up with the news? Ever since we heard about it, we tried to get six-way (multilateral) talks going and we did and have, although I don't know the status of them right now. That was 2 years ago. Since then, NK has continued nuclear and missile development.

It seems you're the one who hasn't kept up with the news.

you can't even attempt to change culture with the gun, hasn't anything been learned in the last couple of years?

the history of the CIA is despicable. Indeed.


"A Timeline of CIA Atrocities"
04/09/2002

CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment.

So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination.

These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator's security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins." Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.

The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an "American Holocaust." The CIA justifies these actions as part of its war against communism. But most coups do not involve a communist threat. Unlucky nations are targeted for a wide variety of reasons: not only threats to American business interests abroad, but also liberal or even moderate social reforms, political instability, the unwillingness of a leader to carry out Washington's dictates, and declarations of neutrality in the Cold War. Indeed, nothing has infuriated CIA Directors quite like a nation's desire to stay out of the Cold War.

The ironic thing about all this intervention is that it frequently fails to achieve American objectives. Often the newly installed dictator grows comfortable with the security apparatus the CIA has built for him. He becomes an expert at running a police state. And because the dictator knows he cannot be overthrown, he becomes independent and defiant of Washington's will. The CIA then finds it cannot overthrow him, because the police and military are under the dictator's control, afraid to cooperate with American spies for fear of torture and execution.

The only two options for the U.S at this point are impotence or war. Examples of this "boomerang effect" include the Shah of Iran, General Noriega and Saddam Hussein. The boomerang effect also explains why the CIA has proven highly successful at overthrowing democracies, but a wretched failure at overthrowing dictatorships.

The following timeline should confirm that the CIA as we know it should be abolished and replaced by a true information-gathering and analysis organization. The CIA cannot be reformed — it is institutionally and culturally corrupt.

1929:
The culture we lost - Secretary of State Henry Stimson refuses to endorse a code-breaking operation, saying, "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail."

1941:
COI created - In preparation for World War II, President Roosevelt creates the Office of Coordinator of Information (COI). General William "Wild Bill" Donovan heads the new intelligence service.

1942:
OSS created - Roosevelt restructures COI into something more suitable for covert action, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Donovan recruits so many of the nation's rich and powerful that eventually people joke that "OSS" stands for "Oh, so social!" or "Oh, such snobs!"

1943:
Italy - Donovan recruits the Catholic Church in Rome to be the center of Anglo-American spy operations in Fascist Italy. This would prove to be one of America's most enduring intelligence alliances in the Cold War.

1945:
OSS is abolished - The remaining American information agencies cease covert actions and return to harmless information gathering and analysis.
Operation PAPERCLIP - While other American agencies are hunting down Nazi war criminals for arrest, the U.S. intelligence community is smuggling them into America, unpunished, for their use against the Soviets. The most important of these is Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler's master spy who had built up an intelligence network in the Soviet Union. With full U.S. blessing, he creates the "Gehlen Organization," a band of refugee Nazi spies who reactivate their networks in Russia. These include SS intelligence officers Alfred Six and Emil Augsburg (who massacred Jews in the Holocaust), Klaus Barbie (the "Butcher of Lyon"), Otto von Bolschwing (the Holocaust mastermind who worked with Eichmann) . The Gehlen Organization supplies the U.S. with its only intelligence on the Soviet Union for the next ten years, serving as a bridge between the abolishment of the OSS and the creation of the CIA. However, much of the "intelligence" the former Nazis provide is bogus.

Gehlen inflates Soviet military capabilities at a time when Russia is still rebuilding its devastated society, in order to inflate his own importance to the Americans (who might otherwise punish him). In 1948, Gehlen almost convinces the Americans that war is imminent, and the West should make a preemptive strike. In the 50s he produces a fictitious "missile gap." To make matters worse, the Russians have thoroughly penetrated the Gehlen Organization with double agents, undermining the very American security that Gehlen was supposed to protect.

1947:
Greece - President Truman requests military aid to Greece to support right-wing forces fighting communist rebels. For the rest of the Cold War, Washington and the CIA will back notorious Greek leaders with deplorable human rights records.
CIA created - President Truman signs the National Security Act of 1947, creating the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Council. The CIA is accountable to the president through the NSC -there is no democratic or congressional oversight. Its charter allows the CIA to "perform such other functions and duties. as the National Security Council may from time to time direct." This loophole opens the door to covert action and dirty tricks.

1948:
Covert-action wing created - The CIA recreates a covert action wing, innocuously called the Office of Policy Coordination, led by Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner. According to its secret charter, its responsibilities include "propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world."
Italy - The CIA corrupts democratic elections in Italy, where Italian communists threaten to win the elections. The CIA buys votes, broadcasts propaganda, threatens and beats up opposition leaders, and infiltrates and disrupts their organizations. It works — the communists are defeated.

1949:
Radio Free Europe - The CIA creates its first major propaganda outlet, Radio Free Europe. Over the next several decades, its broadcasts are so blatantly false that for a time it is considered illegal to publish transcripts of them in the U.S.

Late 40s
Operation MOCKINGBIRD - The CIA begins recruiting American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda. The effort is headed by Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham is publisher of The Washington Post, which becomes a major CIA player. Eventually, the CIA's media assets will include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service and more. By the CIA's own admission, at least 25 organizations and 400 journalists will become CIA assets.

1953
Iran - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.
Operation MK-ULTRA - Inspired by North Korea's brainwashing program, the CIA begins experiments on mind control. The most notorious part of this project involves giving LSD and other drugs to American subjects without their knowledge or against their will, causing several to commit suicide. However, the operation involves far more than this. Funded in part by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, research includes propaganda, brainwashing, public relations, advertising, hypnosis, and other forms of suggestion.

1954
Guatemala - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.

1954-1958
North Vietnam - CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy, land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA's continuing failure results in escalating American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War.

1956
Hungary - Radio Free Europe incites Hungary to revolt by broadcasting Khruschev's Secret Speech, in which he denounced Stalin. It also hints that American aid will help the Hungarians fight. This aid fails to materialize as Hungarians launch a doomed armed revolt, which only invites a major Soviet invasion. The conflict kills 7,000 Soviets and 30,000 Hungarians.

1957-1973
Laos - The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos' democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine" of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA's army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.

1959
Haiti - The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes," who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal human rights record.

1961
The Bay of Pigs - The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro's Cuba. But "Operation Mongoose" fails, due to poor planning, security and backing. The planners had imagined that the invasion will spark a popular uprising against Castro — which never happens. A promised American air strike also never occurs. This is the CIA's first public setback, causing President Kennedy to fire CIA Director Allen Dulles.

Dominican Republic - The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington has supported since 1930. Trujillo's business interests have grown so large (about 60 percent of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests.

Ecuador - The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco to resign. Vice President Carlos Arosemana replaces him; the CIA fills the now vacant vice presidency with its own man.

Congo (Zaire) - The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. However, public support for Lumumba's politics runs so high that the CIA cannot clearly install his opponents in power. Four years of political turmoil follow.

1963
Dominican Republic - The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta.
Ecuador - A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.

1964
Brazil - A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty in history. General Castelo Branco will create Latin America's first death squads, or bands of secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these "communists" are no more than Branco's political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death squads.

1965
Indonesia - The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor, General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being "communist." The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.

Dominican Republic - A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country's elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.

Greece - With the CIA's backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.

Congo (Zaire) - A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. The hated and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.

1966
The Ramparts Affair - The radical magazine Ramparts begins a series of unprecedented anti-CIA articles. Among their scoops: the CIA has paid the University of Michigan $25 million dollars to hire "professors" to train South Vietnamese students in covert police methods. MIT and other universities have received similar payments. Ramparts also reveals that the National Students' Association is a CIA front. Students are sometimes recruited through blackmail and bribery, including draft deferments.

1967
Greece - A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government two days before the elections. The favorite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate. During the next six years, the "reign of the colonels" - backed by the CIA - will usher in the widespread use of torture and murder against political opponents. When a Greek ambassador objects to President Johnson about U.S. plans for Cyprus, Johnson tells him: "Fuck your parliament and your constitution."

Operation PHEONIX - The CIA helps South Vietnamese agents identify and then murder alleged Viet Cong leaders operating in South Vietnamese villages. According to a 1971 congressional report, this operation killed about 20,000 "Viet Cong."

1968
Operation CHAOS - The CIA has been illegally spying on American citizens since 1959, but with Operation CHAOS, President Johnson dramatically boosts the effort. CIA agents go undercover as student radicals to spy on and disrupt campus organizations protesting the Vietnam War. They are searching for Russian instigators, which they never find. CHAOS will eventually spy on 7,000 individuals and 1,000 organizations.

Bolivia - A CIA-organized military operation captures legendary guerilla Che Guevara. The CIA wants to keep him alive for interrogation, but the Bolivian government executes him to prevent worldwide calls for clemency.

1969
Uruguay - The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrives in Uruguay, a country torn with political strife. Whereas right-wing forces previously used torture only as a last resort, Mitrione convinces them to use it as a routine, widespread practice. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," is his motto. The torture techniques he teaches to the death squads rival the Nazis'. He eventually becomes so feared that revolutionaries will kidnap and murder him a year later.

1970
Cambodia - The CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people.

1971
Bolivia - After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.

Haiti - "Papa Doc" Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son "Baby Doc" Duvalier the dictator of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge of the CIA.

1972
The Case-Zablocki Act - Congress passes an act requiring congressional review of executive agreements. In theory, this should make CIA operations more accountable. In fact, it is only marginally effective.

Cambodia - Congress votes to cut off CIA funds for its secret war in Cambodia.
Watergate Break-in - President Nixon sends in a team of burglars to wiretap Democratic offices at Watergate. The team members have extensive CIA histories, including James McCord, E. Howard Hunt and five of the Cuban burglars. They work for the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), which does dirty work like disrupting Democratic campaigns and laundering Nixon's illegal campaign contributions. CREEP's activities are funded and organized by another CIA front, the Mullen Company.

1973
Chile - The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America's first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.

CIA begins internal investigations - William Colby, the Deputy Director for Operations, orders all CIA personnel to report any and all illegal activities they know about. This information is later reported to Congress.
Watergate Scandal - The CIA's main collaborating newspaper in America, The Washington Post, reports Nixon's crimes long before any other newspaper take up the subject. The two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, make almost no mention of the CIA's many fingerprints all over the scandal. It is later revealed that Woodward was a Naval intelligence briefer to the White House, and knows many important intelligence figures, including General Alexander Haig. His main source, "Deep Throat," is probably one of those.

CIA Director Helms Fired - President Nixon fires CIA Director Richard Helms for failing to help cover up the Watergate scandal. Helms and Nixon have always disliked each other. The new CIA director is William Colby, who is relatively more open to CIA reform.

1974
CHAOS exposed - Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh publishes a story about Operation CHAOS, the domestic surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the U.S. The story sparks national outrage.
Angleton fired - Congress holds hearings on the illegal domestic spying efforts of James Jesus Angleton, the CIA's chief of counterintelligence. His efforts included mail-opening campaigns and secret surveillance of war protesters. The hearings result in his dismissal from the CIA.

House clears CIA in Watergate - The House of Representatives clears the CIA of any complicity in Nixon's Watergate break-in.

The Hughes Ryan Act - Congress passes an amendment requiring the president to report nonintelligence CIA operations to the relevant congressional committees in a timely fashion.

1975
Australia - The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the nation.

Angola - Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger's assertions, Angola is a country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.

"The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" - Victor Marchetti and John Marks publish this whistle-blowing history of CIA crimes and abuses. Marchetti has spent 14 years in the CIA, eventually becoming an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence. Marks has spent five years as an intelligence official in the State Department. "Inside the Company" - Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA. Agee has worked in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took part.

Congress investigates CIA wrong-doing - Public outrage compels Congress to hold hearings on CIA crimes. Senator Frank Church heads the Senate investigation ("The Church Committee"), and Representative Otis Pike heads the House investigation. (Despite a 98 percent incumbency reelection rate, both Church and Pike are defeated in the next elections.) The investigations lead to a number of reforms intended to increase the CIA's accountability to Congress, including the creation of a standing Senate committee on intelligence. However, the reforms prove ineffective, as the Iran/Contra scandal will show. It turns out the CIA can control, deal with or sidestep Congress with ease.

The Rockefeller Commission - In an attempt to reduce the damage done by the Church Committee, President Ford creates the "Rockefeller Commission" to whitewash CIA history and propose toothless reforms. The commission's namesake, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, is himself a major CIA figure. Five of the commission's eight members are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a CIA-dominated organization.

1979
Iran - The CIA fails to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, a longtime CIA puppet, and the rise of Muslim fundamentalists who are furious at the CIA's backing of SAVAK, the Shah's bloodthirsty secret police. In revenge, the Muslims take 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Afghanistan - The USSR enters Afghanistan. Some reports indicate the Carter government deliberately provoked Soviet intervention in Afghanistan by supporting anti-communist forces prior to the invasion. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to any faction willing to fight the Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the World Trade Center bombing in New York.

El Salvador - An idealistic group of young military officers, repulsed by the massacre of the poor, overthrows the right-wing government. However, the U.S. compels the inexperienced officers to include many of the old guard in key positions in their new government. Soon, things are back to "normal" - the military government is repressing and killing poor civilian protesters. Many of the young military and civilian reformers, finding themselves powerless, resign in disgust.

Nicaragua - Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s.

1980
El Salvador - The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D'Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.

1981
Iran/Contra Begins - The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that the Sandinistas will be "pressured" until "they say 'uncle.'" The CIA's Freedom Fighter's Manual disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery, blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination.

1983
Honduras - The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual - 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras' notorious "Battalion 316" then uses these techniques, with the CIA's full knowledge, on thousands of leftist dissidents. At least 184 are murdered.

1984
The Boland Amendment - The last of a series of Boland Amendments is passed. These amendments have reduced CIA aid to the Contras; the last one cuts it off completely. However, CIA Director William Casey is already prepared to "hand off" the operation to Colonel Oliver North, who illegally continues supplying the Contras through the CIA's informal, secret, and self-financing network. This includes "humanitarian aid" donated by Adolph Coors and William Simon, and military aid funded by Iranian arms sales.

1986
Eugene Hasenfus - Nicaragua shoots down a C-123 transport plane carrying military supplies to the Contras. The lone survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, turns out to be a CIA employee, as are the two dead pilots. The airplane belongs to Southern Air Transport, a CIA front. The incident makes a mockery of President Reagan's claims that the CIA is not illegally arming the Contras.

Iran/Contra Scandal - Although the details have long been known, the Iran/Contra scandal finally captures the media's attention in 1986. Congress holds hearings, and several key figures (like Oliver North) lie under oath to protect the intelligence community. CIA Director William Casey dies of brain cancer before Congress can question him. All reforms enacted by Congress after the scandal are purely cosmetic.

Haiti - Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that "Baby Doc" Duvalier will remain "President for Life" only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture and assassination.

1989
Panama - The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA's payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA's knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega's growing independence and intransigence have angered Washington. so out he goes.

1990
Haiti - Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed military deposes him. More military dictators brutalize the country, as thousands of Haitian refugees escape the turmoil in barely seaworthy boats. As popular opinion calls for Aristide's return, the CIA begins a disinformation campaign painting the courageous priest as mentally unstable.

1991
The Fall of the Soviet Union - The CIA fails to predict this most important event of the Cold War. This suggests that it has been so busy undermining governments that it hasn't been doing its primary job: gathering and analyzing information. The fall of the Soviet Union also robs the CIA of its reason for existence: fighting communism. This leads some to accuse the CIA of intentionally failing to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union. Curiously, the intelligence community's budget is not significantly reduced after the demise of communism.

1992
Economic Espionage - In the years following the end of the Cold War, the CIA is increasingly used for economic espionage. This involves stealing the technological secrets of competing foreign companies and giving them to American ones. Given the CIA's clear preference for dirty tricks over mere information gathering, the possibility of serious criminal behavior is very great indeed.

1993
Haiti - The chaos in Haiti grows so bad that President Clinton has no choice but to remove the Haitian military dictator, Raoul Cedras, on threat of U.S. invasion. The U.S. occupiers do not arrest Haiti's military leaders for crimes against humanity, but instead ensure their safety and rich retirements. Aristide is returned to power only after being forced to accept an agenda favorable to the country's ruling class.


EPILOGUE

In a speech before the CIA celebrating its 50th anniversary, President Clinton said: "By necessity, the American people will never know the full story of your courage." Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked. Furthermore, Clinton's statement is simply untrue. The history of the agency is growing painfully clear, especially with the declassification of historical CIA documents. We may not know the details of specific operations, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of the CIA. These facts began emerging nearly two decades ago at an ever-quickening pace. Today we have a remarkably accurate and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and verified from countless different directions.

The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern. (Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners. (See Philip Agee's On the Run for an example of early harassment.)

However, over the last two decades the tide of evidence has become overwhelming, and the CIA has found that it does not have enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike. This is especially true in the age of the Internet, where information flows freely among millions of people. Since censorship is impossible, the Agency must now defend itself with apologetics. Clinton's "Americans will never know" defense is a prime example.

Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants. The CIA had moral options available to them, but did not take them.

Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: "Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country's cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. The second begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples' human rights?"

The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity. Our intelligence community should be rebuilt from the ground up, with the goal of collecting and analyzing information. As for covert action, there are two moral options. The first one is to eliminate covert action completely. But this gives jitters to people worried about the Adolph Hitler's of the world. So a second option is that we can place covert action under extensive and true democratic oversight. For example, a bipartisan Congressional Committee of 40 members could review and veto all aspects of CIA operations upon a majority or super-majority vote. Which of these two options is best may be the subject of debate, but one thing is clear: like dictatorship, like monarchy, unaccountable covert operations should die like the dinosaurs they are.

I just found out, btw, that the Kufir jet has a range of 2,000 mi. Their replacements, the Lavi jets, could go further, but I can't find specifications.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/weapons.htm Israel doesn't use the Lavi prototype. Instead, they sold it to China.

you can't even attempt to change culture with the gun, hasn't anything been learned in the last couple of years? Exactly. The Cold War should have taught the world that.

The Soviet bloc didn't end because of conflict. It collapsed because the people revolted against the system.

The soviet regime ended because of corruption, Mcdonalds and Blue Jeans. However it was because of strong military presence that no one went to war, a balance of power must always be kept

The soviet regime ended because of corruption, Mcdonalds and Blue Jeans. What about the rise of nationalism in the Baltic republics that spread throughout the rest of the Soviet republics? What about the power struggle between Gorbachev and Yeltsin?