New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

almarst-2001 - 10:38pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4370 of 4466)

What is sad is how the seemingly honest man like Powell can be corrupted and coopted into world-wide scams and crimes. Powell will have to pay dearly for selling his soul to Evil for his and his son's advancement. And apparently he is willing to do so. Of whom the history will note: "He was (initially) a honest man"

almarst-2001 - 10:57pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4371 of 4466)

On "Echelon".

According to gisterme, this CIA's and NSAs creature (a multi-billion$ dynosores more precisely) is busy only by watching the e-mails and phone conversations of Bin-Ladden and other terrorists, while scrupulesly throwing away any other information falling into their hands. And apparently paranoid Europeans just lost their minds by requestin at least the formal assurance, this all it does. Morover, the NSA simply rejected the offer to meet and discuss the issue while US Government denied even the existance of "Echelon".

gisterme,

If you think the "Echelon" is a legitimate enterprise working overtime to protect the world (including presumably the US NATO alies in Europe) against terrorists, why such a strange behavier on the side of this enterprise's owners?

And, if so little trust of US by Europe, how one could hope to convince them the US designed MD will benefit them as well?

Next move, please.

almarst-2001 - 11:14pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4372 of 4466)

gisterme 5/30/01 1:57pm

"Where are the big $ at the end of:

1) Grenada

2) Panama

3) Iraq

4) Somalia

5) Bosnia

6) Kosovo ????

As far as I can tell, the cash-flow has been in the wrong direction in all those cases to justify your claim. Perhaps you were thinking of something else? "

The military interventions have never generated the positive cash flow, except for the defence contractors (which is not insignificant).

But, just as the cold War, there is a bigger geopolitical picture, the US taxpayers are asked to pay for. As Mr. T. Friedman of NYT once declared, (approximatly) "It is thanks to US military, the MacDonalds can be found in so many places around the World".

Before going to specifics, please take a look at:

A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS From Wounded Knee to Yugoslavia - http://www.swans.com/library/art6/zig055.html and

A history of U.S. intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean - http://www.ukans.edu/cwis/organizations/las/interven.html

almarst-2001 - 11:18pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4373 of 4466)

Now, the specifics:

Grenada - http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/Grenada.htm

"On March 13, 1979, the New Joint Endeavor for Welfare, Education, and Liberation (New Jewel) movement ousted Sir Eric Gairy, Grenada's first prime minister, in a nearly bloodless coup and established a people's revolutionary government (PRG), headed by Maurice Bishop, who became prime minister. His Marxist-Leninist Government established close ties with Cuba, the Soviet Union, and other communist-bloc countries. In October 1983, a power struggle within the government resulted in the arrest and subsequent murder of Bishop and several members of his cabinet by elements of the people's revolutionary army.

Following a breakdown in civil order, U.S. forces, in conjunction with contingents of the security forces of several neighboring Caribbean states, invaded the independent state of Grenada on October 25 in response to an appeal from the governor general and to a request for assistance from the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. The mission was to oust the People's Revolutionary Government, to protect U.S. citizens and restore the lawful government."

And this:

US: Intervention - The Peace and Justice Treaty of the Americas - http://www.wilpf.org/cuba/amerist.htm

And many more if you dare to take a lokk on the Internet. Would you?

almarst-2001 - 11:33pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4374 of 4466)

As this one too:

The Rationale for US Military Intervention After the Cold War - http://www.umassd.edu/specialprograms/mideastaffairs/rational.htm

"The mission of US foreign policy in the 1990's was described by Anthony Lake, President Clinton's former National Security advisor as the export of "market democracy." It was undoubtedly regarded as representing a triumph of the US business model of foreign policy, which depicts a fusion of economic and political liberalism--free enterprise and free expression. For Lake, Albright and Clinton, an adjective such as "market," describing the democracy they promote, would provide the economic rationale for the possible use of force. For neither the human rights of the Bosnian Muslims, nor those of the Kuwaiti people provided sufficient U.S. public backing for military intervention. Previously, Bush and Baker had to switch from human rights as rationale for intervention to "jobs," "standard of living," and oil. In Bosnia, where these tangible elements do not exist, US public opinion exhibited earnest misgivings about any U.S. intervention.

Market Democracy is a code phrase for colonized markets, free to US business interests to exploit, with little governmental interference from the local authorities. The humans whose rights are really being promoted and protected are executives of large corporations slated to reap the main benefit of trade legislation and the new foreign policy emphasis on the market, as well as the rights of their wealthy overseas partners who facilitate the marketing of their products."

If that does not say it all, it nevertheless says a lot.

almarst-2001 - 11:38pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4375 of 4466)

Other then "market democracy" there are other reasons including just MARKETS, human and natural resources, strategic geographical locations and lastly, the testing of a new Pentagon's toys (the military kind of "marketing").

(91 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense