New Sanctions To Target Syrian and Iranian Tech Capacity 161
vivIsel writes "This morning, President Obama is set to unveil a new executive order that will allow the U.S. to specifically target sanctions against individuals, companies or countries who use technology to enable human rights abuse. Especially as repressive regimes more effectively monitor their dissidents online (rather than simply blocking access), the sanctions focus on companies that help them do that."
TSA (Score:5, Funny)
Now if only they'd use that on the TSA
Re:TSA (Score:5, Funny)
you mean the USA
Re: (Score:2)
Although I guess they are strongly convergent and will be synonymous ina year or two. The United Security Agency, sounds good yes.
Pot, kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
So when do the sanctions roll out against ourselves? I'd say "repressive regime" that "monitors dissidents" applies directly to the US, no?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bingo. The USA is the bad guys in too many peoples eyes. Time for a little self reflection.
Re: (Score:3)
So, do you oppose the sanctions on the grounds that they're hypocritical, then? Or are you just happy that you can point out the hypocrisy?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, i dont understand your points. Are you suggesting that mearly commenting on a chat board implies freedom? Or are you suggesting that the NSA has ONLY harvested this information and added my dissidence to its profile on me, and not used it against me YET, is a form of freedom?
Freedom is freedom FROM government, not freedom OF government.
Critisism of ones government does not imply freedom, nor necessarily its ability to act against you... Yet.
The worm is turning in the USA. Facism is half a goosestep
Re: (Score:1)
it's not democracy, or republic, and far away from fascism yet. i prefer to call it "elected dictatorship". you elect a group of people to rule you dictatorially for few years, while ensuring whoever succeeds them, will have the same agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
What you described IS a republic.. which is exactly what the US is. Here's the dictionary definition [reference.com]:
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
In other words, we all vote people into office, then those people do whatever the hell they want as our representatives.
If you don't like the morons in office, then why do you (we) keep putting them into office?
Re: (Score:2)
A) "the powers that be" are the people of the US. Those are the people that benefit from the current system and refuse to change it. Why do you think social security is such a mess?
B) people "eat it up" because they agree with it. The people who call social security reformers 'crazy'? They're social security recipients (and no one else.. because only those who receive social security care enough about it to say anything.)
Politicians lie.. and people on their side think it's ok because it will advance their
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like the morons in office, then why do you (we) keep putting them into office?
Probably because A) anytime someone runs for office on the platform of challenging the status quo, the powers that be immediately assault them by calling them 'crazy,' and B) the ignorant masses eat such marginalizations up like high-fructose corn syrup.
Or C) Candidates feel free to lie about what they're going to do in representing their electorate, and promptly forget about their promises once elected, and the electorate let them get away with that (or have no power to change this).
We need term limits and easy recall ("You're fired!") for all politicians.
And "None of the above" should be used as a write in candidate *much* more often, and should be accepted as valid by the authorities. People ought to read more L. Neil Smith.
Re: (Score:3)
it's not democracy, or republic, and far away from fascism yet.
Spit it out. It's (so far, dependant upon who you are) a "benevolent dictatorship", with *a lot* of the stink of fascism. They just haven't bothered to come for you yet. That "benevolent" bit can change in a heart beat however. Keep watching.
This is turning out to be a very interesting century (as in the Chinese curse - "May you live in interesting times").
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't MAKE a point. I asked a question with the hope of clarity. Do you oppose the idea of imposing sanctions just because the entity doing the imposition is hypocritical?
That's different than well, anything that you responded to at all. Do you think I'm defending the current and past actions of the U.S. government vis a vis its own citizens' rights? I don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, those are all moderately to completely valid criticisms of the United States and its citizens. Didn't answer my question.
Is it an appropriate reason to oppose these sanctions? Hypocrisy is bad, we all know that. That doesn't address the validity/appropriateness of this particular action.
Re:Pot, kettle (Score:5, Funny)
Bingo. The USA is the bad guys in too many peoples eyes. Time for a little self reflection.
Says the guy openly criticizing the USA with absolutely no fear for his safety or the safety of his family as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
He is not saying that openly unless his slashdot handle is his real name.
Say this stuff in an airport and see if they let you on a plane.
Re: (Score:3)
Says the guy willfully ignorant of the fact that the U.S. has had innocent people kidnapped, tortured, [salon.com] or killed: [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really comparing the killing of one man, on foreign soil, conspiring with and surrounded by enemies of this country, who had openly declared war on the country and was actively trying to find ways to kill as many Americans as possible with the hanging of hundreds or thousands of men in the streets found guilty of being homosexuals?
See, this is the kind of moral equivalence bullshit you guys pull all the time and it really makes you look seriously mathematically challenged at best. You truly see the
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really expecting your fake outrage and filibustering to fly here? The Federal Government targeted an American citizen for execution without bothering to even indict him. Which alternates between insisting that no one should question this killing because there was so much evidence that he was a bad guy, and then refusing to give a shred of said evidence when pressed to do so.
Then you uncritically accept their storyline without bothering to cite anythi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1990s sanctions against Iraq caused 1 million people to starve to death (the Secretary of State acknowledged that stat to be true, but she said it was necessary), and led to 9/11. Now we are going to starve another million Syrians and Iranians. Knocking off innocent people is a perfect way to provoke anger & spark a war.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the 1990s sanctions against Iraq caused 1 million people to starve to death
No, Saddam Hussein caused every single one of those people to starve to death. Not least by diverting the aid meant for them, but in general by never honoring the commitments he made when he was being pushed back from his invasion of Kuwait. His regime was sanctioned because of its conduct. His people were offered food and other support, but he prevented that from being used well or at all. His continued actions in that regard were part of what motivated his final ouster from power, as eventually even the
Re: (Score:2)
Well actually a 1/2 million. And they were a secondary cause of 9/11, the primary cause was our support for the Saudi government against their internal rebels.
And this is about computer technology sanctions against Western / US companies not food sanctions against opposed countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think you could come up with a list of foreign governments that you think are actually responsible for their own behavior, and that of their country? Are there any that have even a smidgen of influence over the activities within their borders? Or is everything the fault of the United States? The mass starvation in North Korea? The slaughter in Syria? The dreams of regional hegemony and genocidal inclinations of Iran? Do the leaders of these countries have their own dreams, their own goals? Ar
Re: (Score:2)
Strawman argument. I never said the U.S. is responsible for "all" the bad things in the world..... only those countries where blood is very clearly on its hands. Such as the blatant slaughter (or maiming) of 1 million Iraqis, half-a-million Afghanis, and who knows how many victims of our Yemen and Libyan bombings.
Maybe we ought to find a better solution than going-round and murdering our neighbors. The amount of corpses the U.S. has created in the last two decades would create a mound higher than most bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
James Risen published highly classified materials. He is not under criminal threat for anything other than failure to obey a court order to reveal sources. One can argue how strongly or not strongly the government should protect journalists who assist espionage, balancing national security against the public's write to know. That is far far different than not having a free society.
Similarly with wikileaks spokespeople. The USA does absolutely nothing to people who are outside the mainstream. You can re
Re: (Score:2)
Of course laws exist to protect abrogation of law. There would far less crime if the police just shot all suspects but the law prevents that even though it leads to greater abrogation of law.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow, I don't think your example illustrates any of the issues under consideration here.
These examples are of people treated like political prisoners, without the issuance of warrants or the exercise of due process.
In the one case where a semblance of court procedure was attempted, the one you cite as criminal, the prosecution on legal grounds failed, rather spectacularly.
But don't let that get in your way of advocacy for eliminating protections of habeus corpus or dismissal of the first and fourth orig
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it does demonstrate the problem with your logic that the law shouldn't apply when other people have broken the law.
These examples are of people treated like political prisoners, without the issuance of warrants or the exercise of due process.
No they aren't. These are people are being treated much more lightly than americans accused of assisting espionage and the possible criminal components of it. Issues involving intelligence operations are handled via. the congressional committees not the pu
Physician, heal thyself (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this the same administration that has been falling all over itself giving retroactive immunity [wikipedia.org] to telcos and other companies violating the civil rights of American citizens?
Re: (Score:2)
I get what you (and a bunch of ACs or one really bored AC apparently) are saying, but I think the argument is going to be a hard sell when you're forced to recognize the categorical difference between the technocratic repression of a modern megastate and the repression of shelling cities where resistance is detected.
That said, there's another powerful argument as to our hypocrisy, which is the double standard we hold our allies to versus these states we sanction.
Re:Physician, heal thyself (Score:5, Insightful)
Just playing devil's advocate here:
What would the US government's response be if a small (or a significant) portion of the population resisted/rebelled against the government?
Well, the Whiskey Rebellion [wikipedia.org] was put down with violence. If you say that that doesn't count because the US is democratic, well, especially early on, the US was not very democratic, and that was a feature, not a bug. In fact, it was sort of like Syria, or Iran today, with elections, but also with features designed to perpetuate an existing ruling establishment.
Second, take the Civil War, put down with hundreds of thousands of deaths, and then probable war crimes [wikipedia.org]. Is Syria's war not a war between two factions in the same country, i.e., a civil war? Would Washington have taken kindly to London helping the Confederate States of America [wikipedia.org]?
Finally, take the Occupy Wall Street movement, also put down violently. If Egypt had cleared out Tahrir Square claiming "health code violations", most international media would have laughed. But, in New York, it was done with a straight face.
The message just seems to it's OK if we do it, bad if they do it.
Re: (Score:3)
What would the US government's response be if a small (or a significant) portion of the population resisted/rebelled against the government?
Depends what form the resistance takes. There's a fairly large portion of the population actively resisting US policy of one kind or another, and there's a small bug significant portion of the population preparing for revolution of one kind or another. Since these are mostly impotent threats to the status quo, they're largely ignored, but with some repression to remind the resisters what the state is capable of.
Well, the Whiskey Rebellion [wikipedia.org] was put down with violence. If you say that that doesn't count because the US is democratic, well, especially early on, the US was not very democratic, and that was a feature, not a bug. [snip]
Second, take the Civil War, put down with hundreds of thousands of deaths, and then probable war crimes [wikipedia.org].
You'll note that in neither of these cases was the US a "modern megastate" which employed "techno
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't think it rises to the level of shelling cities which house resistance.
Too many rich Americans in cities. Now, a small farming commune is another story...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege [wikipedia.org]
I guess that is totally different from the situation in Syria though. After all, the Branch Davidians were religious extremists.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't understand why the replies I'm getting seem to treat me like I think the US gov't is all sunshine and daisies. Yes, it is brutal. It is far, far more brutal than any odd dictatorship. All the more reason for us to sharpen our arguments.
Waco is a good example of what happens when the state perceives a genuine threat, even just out of pure paranoia. That is an example of "it always reserves the opportunity to drop the other boot". But it's also an outlier in terms of typical internal US behavior.
I can
Re: (Score:3)
Waco was an example of a group that had shot 4 federal agents trying to administer a court order and then refused to surrender. You don't have the right to violently resist police enforcement. You comply and after the fact sue if there were civil rights violations.
Re: (Score:2)
He was surrounded for 12 days and told to surrender to federal officers who had a valid court order.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because you're being overly literal. The point of making analogies other comparisons isn't to say two things are identical, but to, you know, compare them where they are comparable.
In other words, you are sounding the like sort of person who hears a comparison between the wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam and proceed to spend your time complaining that there is no draft, jungle, or comm
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think that's exactly the sort of quibbling I was talking about. Nobody is saying the U.S. military is shelling American cities, so I'm not sure just why you're stuck on that point. Yes, we really are aware there are no communists in Afghanistan, thank you.
Then I'd suggest getting less hung up on 1:1 comparisons that peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is saying the U.S. military is shelling American cities
I didn't say anyone is. I'm objecting to drawing parallels between US repression like domestic wiretapping (and other violations of civil liberties) with Syrian repression which is much more severe than the examples of US repression used by the posters I responded to . Here are the comments I was responding to:
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2805177&cid=39771745 [slashdot.org]
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2805177&cid=39771781 [slashdot.org]
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2805177&cid=3 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I looked all all of the comments you linked to. How many engaged in the overarching, 1:1 comparisons you seem to be objecting to?
Zero.
Not one of those comments is saying that the OWS crackdowns are e
Re: (Score:2)
I looked all all of the comments you linked to. How many engaged in the overarching, 1:1 comparisons you seem to be objecting to?
Zero.
This is ridiculous. Each one of them is explicitly making a comparison to Syrian repression. The Syrian repression is the context and the object of the accusation of hypocrisy. Is it "1:1"? No comparison is "1:1".
"Now if only they'd use that on the TSA"
How is the TSA engaged in repression like Syria, to warrant this comparison? Yes, TSA does engage in repression, but it's fundamentally different from that of Syria.
'I'd say "repressive regime" that "monitors dissidents" applies directly to the US, no?'
How is
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Except they're not. At all. Not one of your cited comments makes such a comparison. Not even close.
Except that commenter never mentioned Syria, which means you have no basis for complaint, and it's the same for the rest of your links. Look, this really isn't that hard. Greenwald: [salon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It is certainly possible to compare America's police state tactics to Syria, just as it's possible to compare the OWS crackdowns with the protests in Tahiri Square.
Of course it's possible. It is also ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a head-in-the-sand sophist. But from your other post, we know that already.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, take the Occupy Wall Street movement, also put down violently.
In what world do you get your news? How can you possibly compare the scale of violence that occurred in Tahrir Square to the removal of protestors in any of the Occupy camps?
It's actually a shame, because your post was making some decent (if IMHO flawed) points up to this point, and then you go and completely blow your credibility.
Re: (Score:1)
Easily. Cracked skulls, bleeding heads, mass arrests, use of mounted police, tear gas, macing peaceful protesters (even ones sitting down) in the face with pepper spray....
So, on what world do you get your news?
Re: (Score:1)
You have no sense of scale.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got willful denialism. Thousands of peaceful protesters arrested, police brutality, cracked skulls, mounted police (both motorcycles and horses), mass use of tear gas and pepper spray....
It's all there man, whether or not you choose to ignore it.
Re: (Score:2)
You also have no sense of context.
Re: (Score:2)
You're really this intellectually lazy? Hand waving and 7 word tautologies do not an argument make.
Nonsense. What unoccupied dwellings were they located in for the purpose of residency? See also, the First Amendment: [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You're really this intellectually lazy?
Arguing with someone who thinks that the Occupy xxx protests and the Tahrir Square protests were similar beyond being a bunch of dissatisfied people seems like a waste of time, and in that regard yes I'm being lazy.
What unoccupied dwellings were they located in for the purpose of residency?
Tents aren't "dwellings"? How about you discuss the gist of my argument instead of arguing about whether my use of the word "squatter" is appropriate? They were living in the park(s), not simply "protesting" - that is the important distinction I was trying to make.
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
Care to point to the part of the
Re: (Score:2)
Which part is your lazy mind having a hard time understanding?
The mass evictions under laughable pretenses?
The use of tear gas against peaceful protesters?
The mass arrests of hundreds of peaceful protesters?
The many acts of police brutality against peaceful protesters?
The use of mounted police ag
Re: (Score:2)
The mass evictions under laughable pretenses?
I have no problem with the evictions, only with the methods used in some of the cities.
The use of tear gas against peaceful protesters?
Agreed that tear gas is out of bounds. It's not deadly force however.
The mass arrests of hundreds of peaceful protesters?
They got away with violating local laws for months before they were arrested. I'd say people were extremely lenient for the most part with the Occupy xxx protesters, only breaking it up when it had lost any semblance of momentum or purpose.
The many acts of police brutality against peaceful protesters?
Many is a weasel word. Document the brutality. I can count the really outrageous stuff on one hand, though the Oakla
Re: (Score:2)
As you have documented the brutality in Egypt?
Re: (Score:2)
As you have documented the brutality in Egypt?
Yes, exactly.
facilitate traffic
Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests.
You are wrong here. The incident where the NYC cops used the pepper spray on the girls was during an operation where they were trying to keep people on the sidewalk and off of the street with orange snowfence - the "barricades".
reduce noise congestion
Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests. Also hilarious, given the use of LRAD audio cannons to break up the protests. You were saying?
So law enforcement tools should be chosen not based on effectiveness of the technique, but on how hypocritical the method might sound to Uberbah? I'm going to disagree with you there. If a guy is using a weapon in a crime I have no problem with the police also using a we
Re: (Score:2)
No, not exactly. Unless you are referring to some past conversation which only took place inside your head.
According to the same police commissioner responsible for cracking down on the protests when he's not busy spying on hundreds of people for suspicion of not being
Re: (Score:2)
No, not exactly. Unless you are referring to some past conversation which only took place inside your head.
Are you just trolling me? LOL. From our conversation:
Re: (Score:2)
The fact of something being less harmful that that which is far worse, doesn't lessen the fact that it's harmful.
So, to your moral compass, the actions of a single cop (or even group of cops) working for a single local government represents the same thing as a state system of coordinated violence directed by an unelected despot?
Re: (Score:2)
The existence of an unelected despot is an abusive cop's best defense? Buh?
Not what I said. A cop that busts a peaceful man's head open has no defense.
Occupy xxx (which one are you talking about anyway?) were not simply "peaceful protesters", they were also squatters. In NYC, there were a few incidents where cops used disproportionate force. In Egypt, meanwhile, there were running battles between agents of the state and protesters. Not only are these events different, they are on polar ends of a scale.
Let me ask you something: when it comes time to remove people from a place where
Re: (Score:2)
I refuse to accept the premise you present.
I'll come right out and suggest that this is because it would lead you to an uncomfortable conclusion.
How about your own couch. There's a guy on your own couch. He refuses to leave. Yes, someone living on your own couch is different from someone living in your community's park - but really the two situations lie on the same continuum. I think a community has a right to set rules in their own park just as you have a right to set rules on your own couch. Obviously, these rules must be limited - you cannot say
Re: (Score:2)
A person occupying a public place is engaged a civil act.
Why is trespassing peacefully on your coach a crime, but disobeying some local ordinance not? What if they just camped out on the little strip of municipal property between the street and your lawn?
"more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, bank reform, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics."
Who the hell would argue with those goals? They had absolutely no demand as to how to accomplish those things. More and better jobs! Great! Let's get started! There was no way to satisfy the protests, because they had no concrete endgame. Did they have some unemployment number that would end the protest? No.
Did t
Re: (Score:2)
We go to parks. We don't invade actual homes. Attempting to blend the two concepts makes for a horrible comparison.
OK, but that's why I said "What if they just camped out on the little strip of municipal property between the street and your lawn?". You ignored that.
but demanding help.
Demanding help for what?
Arab Spring protestors do/did not have demands as to "how"
They uniformly demanded the removal of the current dictator.
Why do you have two standards regarding this style of protest?
Because the "style of protest" is completely different. I already laid out why I feel they are completely different, and see little reason to repeat myself.
Occupy protestors must be economists to be valid?
No. But they must have some kind of actionable demand. General unhappiness is not a demand. I asked one of them in Philly
Re: (Score:2)
Second, take the Civil War, put down with hundreds of thousands of deaths, and then probable war crimes [wikipedia.org]. Is Syria's war not a war between two factions in the same country, i.e., a civil war? Would Washington have taken kindly to London helping the Confederate States of America [wikipedia.org]?
Nice moral equivalency shenanigans, there. The US South was defending the indefensible, and the Baathis regime in Syria is defending the indefensible. Your attempt to flip things around backwards is (or should be understood to be, if you're paying attention) embarassingly lacking in a moral compass and any sort of intellectual integrity.
Finally, take the Occupy Wall Street movement, also put down violently.
Oh, please. They were completely indulged at every turn, and completely abused their fellow citizens' patience as they squatted on public property that was not theirs to e
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy of the whisky rebellion is fair.
I had friends at Tahrir square. After they were arrested they were sent to jail for extended periods of time. At occupy they were mainly out within 24 hours with minor fines. In Syria the police are clearing the square with thousands of deaths. In the USA were are upset someone got hit and hospitalized and a few people got hit with tear gas.
We have problems but they are orders of magnitude different. And as an aside, London did assist the Confederate States
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the government will order others to do things on its behalf, and sometimes, these things may fall on its ass. No one will listen to the government if there's a chance that they can get sued for following orders, so the government can do things such as limit liabilities or to assume the liabilities resulting from these actions. If the government wants to spy, it has to have the telcos comply so the government will provide retroactive immunity. If the government wants airplanes made, it wouldn't do
Abuses, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
"a new executive order that will allow the U.S. to specifically target sanctions against individuals, companies or countries who use technology to enable human rights abuse"
Good, start directly with yourselves, US Gov't. You're one of the worst offenders on this fucking planet.
Re: (Score:1)
"a new executive order that will allow the U.S. to specifically target sanctions against individuals, companies or countries who use technology to enable human rights abuse"
Good, start directly with yourselves, US Gov't. You're one of the worst offenders on this fucking planet.
This kind of ignorance is what keeps mass-murder from happening across the world. Does the US government have its share of problems? Heck yeah. Is it reasonable to compare it to what is going on in Iran and Syria? Far from it.
The next time civilians get gunned down systematically by our government on a daily basis you can bring up this point. Until then, leave politics at home and allow us to save lives.
Governing By Executive Order (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The US doesn't currently have a system of government, so anything useful that can come from this complete breakdown of government ... seems good to me.
Re: (Score:3)
We'll know they're serious when the President repeals the National State of Emergency [wikipedia.org] that we have been in since September 2001. It has to be renewed every year and it has been renewed every year. The SoE grants the Executive Branch several hundred additional powers reserved for a state of emergency.
Which companies? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that the U.S. or European company that manufactures the products? Oh, no. They don't sell to customers in embargoed countries! Hold on a sec. I see a large order of "corporate internet filtering" products for shipment to the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain that needs attention. Amazing how much tech stuff those guys use!
Where was I? Oh, yes. Those nasty gray-market distributors. You know, the shell companies incorporated a couple of months ago? Yeah. Those guys are ruining it for everyone!
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a large order of CALEA equipment for delivery to U.S. telecom firms to ship out. Between that and the systems on order by the U.K. and China the bonuses should be fat again this quarter!
Start at home first? (Score:4, Informative)
They should start with the good old USA.
The NSA is currently building a huge data center to capture email, phone, sms, etc. data.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/23/more_secrets_on_growing_state_surveillance [democracynow.org]
This includes an interview with hacker Jacob Appelbaum, who has volunteered for WikiLeaks and now works with Tor Project and others.
what's new? (Score:5, Informative)
Since WWII the US Government has sanctioned entire economies and betold woes on those who would deal with them.
What, you want a list?
(note: this is by no means exhaustive. Just the ones that actually made the news. Source: own research)
China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia - Serbia 1999
Afghanistan 2001
Libya 2011
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, not exhaustive... Iraq should be there near the bottom again, unless you account for the fact that the US has maintained a military presence there since the invasion of Kuwait... Gulf War II is just Gulf War I: The Sequel much like Kill Bill Volume 2 is the sequel to Kill Bill Vol. 1.
beating the drum for war against Iran (Score:5, Insightful)
We're already sanctioning Iran because they will take Euros or Yen for oil.
This is another straw for the camel; the American public is tired of invading Middle Eastern countries to keep the price of Texas oil high, so we need them to attack us.
Blood is already in the water, the sharks are circling.
Re: (Score:2)
We're already sanctioning Iran because they will take Euros or Yen for oil.
The Europeans, like the US, say that they are sanctioning Iran due to its outlaw nuclear program. But lets go with what you assert, that it is about dollars versus euros. So are the Europeans sanctioning Iran [bloomberg.com] because they take Euros for oil too? Wouldn't that be kind of stupid for the Europeans to do, to punish Iran for accepting their currency to pay for oil? And that's what you claim? Shouldn't they be punishing the Iranians for accepting their currency for other goods besides oil too? Or do they th
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have mistaken me for some caricature you have built in your mind. I have never in my entire life said the US invaded countries to get cheap oil - that is your narrative, not mine, my friend.
I don't know why people believe such illogical things, but reducing the supply of something never makes it cheaper, and turning a major oilfield into a series of flaming holes always reduces the supply of oil. Did you think Bush fils and pere were both unfamiliar with basic economics? Did you think their T
Hewlett-Packard - Israel/Palestine (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we start with HP?
In Palestine, HP is deeply involved with the Israeli occupation. HP develops and profits from population-control systems that assist the Israeli government in the restriction of Palestinian movement, ethnic-based discrimination and segregation, and human rights violations.
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/703/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1232244 [democracyinaction.org]
-----------------
"Through its subsidiary EDS Israel, HP is the prime contractor of the Basel system, an automated biometric access control system installed and maintained by HP in checkpoints in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt).
Another control mechanism HP is involved in is Israel's ID card system, which reflects and reinforces its political and economic asymmetries and tiered citizenship structure. HP will manufacture biometric ID cards for the citizens and residents of Israel (Jewish and Palestinians) for the Israeli Ministry of Interior. In addition, HP also provides services and technologies to the Israeli army.
Furthermore, two of HP's technological services providers in Israel are Matrix and its subsidiary, Tact Testware, which are located in the illegal West Bank settlement of Modi'in Illit. HP is also taking part in the "Smart city" project in the illegal West Bank settlement of Ariel, providing a storage system for the settlement's municipality."
Re: (Score:2)
Not gonna happen.
Nor will we go after the Saudis, these are the folks our government likes. In the case of Israel they even have their own senator Joe Lieberman. I am sure the Saudis have a couple too.
Israel/Palestine (Score:2, Insightful)
Americans will never see the Palestinians as victims.
Never.
The reason is simple too. They aren't. They have played the role of terrorist for so long now Americans find it difficult to separate the words Palestinian and terrorist. To be honest, the Palestinians have never given the world any reason to separate the two words either. No reasonable person believes that they want to be anything more than terrorists. If it walks, quacks and shits like a duck ... it's a duck.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, cry me a river. First you complained that border controls were too slow so they added biometric controls to speed things up. Now you're crying that there are biometric controls.
PS: The "occupied territories" are neither Palestinian nor occupied, but don't let facts get in the way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo
Re: (Score:2)
Palestine is a terrible example. The US directly sells arms to assist in Israeli actions, and those actions have broad support in congress and moderate support in the population at large.
lol (Score:2)
Especially as repressive regimes more effectively monitor their dissidents online (rather than simply blocking access), the sanctions focus on companies that help them do that."
So then US gov, what you're saying is you should place sanctions on yourself and the companies that aid you?
Double Standards everywhere I'm afraid... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But when Iran & Syria do the exact same thing - buying snooping gear from the free market to keep their population in check - they are suddenly "evil"
No, I'm afraid you are quite wrong there, Syria and Iran have been evil regimes for quite some time. The 1982 Hama massacre [abovetopsecret.com] is a good taste of what the Syrian regime is capable of. It also serves as an example of what the Arab & Muslim world will tolerate in silence, but when an Israeli soldier kills one Palestinian Arab suicide bomber it is decried as a massacre and war crime. Iran has long practiced state sponsored terrorism [cfr.org].
Kettle and Pot (Score:2)
This seems somewhat hypocritical, unless this legislation can also be used against the US Government and companies like the RIAA.
Sancations are useless (Score:2)
Sanctions? I thought that was political speak for "shame on you". They don't do anything real.
Can anyone name an international issue or conflict that was resolved by sanctions?
Re:Sancations are useless (Score:4, Funny)
Can anyone name an international issue or conflict that was resolved by sanctions?
Any day now, Fidel Castro will see the light!
Aaaaaaaany day now.
Top of the list? (Score:2)
DHS?
Human Rights (Score:2)
TSA, NDAA, Executive Orders his inside circle buddies of Corzine of MF Global fame I could go on and on.
Human Rights Abuses Indeed, Obama should look out his WH window.
-Hack
PS: Oh, and just as a closing point. If you think gun sales are hot now, wait till Romney and his cohorts get into office. TSA will need every single one of those Hollow Point bullets....at last count, over 200 Million ordered for delivery....right between the eyes of every man women and child in USA.
how bout england? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is as clear as day.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government is using surveillance on people in direct contact with terrorist* organizations to stop people who want to do things like fly planes into buildings for mass slaughter and detonate bombs in crowds for mass slaughter. The Syrian government is using surveillance and mass slaughter to prevent free and fair elections. The difference is clear as the difference between night and day.
For the uninformed - this is the sort of regime that runs Syria, and what it is capable of doing to its own citie
Facts. Look them up. (Score:2)
Everything the parent AC listed has actually happened. So stop blabbering on about hyperbole and start catching up on your Greenwald: [salon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
*cough* Patriot Act *cough* NDAA *cough* assassinations w/o trials *cough* massive NSA spy center under construction right now
Yes, all aimed at Al Qaeda and its affiliates that are making war against the United States, and legal under the law of war. The US Congress passed the laws behind them, as well as the Authorization for Use of Military Force [findlaw.com]. Al Qaeda is no longer being handled as a purely law enforcement problem. Bin Laden, as head of Al Qaeda, declared war on the US and launched attacks. The US is responding in kind. Not hard to understand.
You should probably see a doctor. You don't sound well. Of course you'll do
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, except that's a big pile of police state apologist bullshit with no basis in reality.
If we are "at war" with Al Queda, then how many captured Al Queda operatives have been treated as prisoners of war? The Constitution clearly states that habeas corpus may only be suspended in times of invasion or rebellion, making the NDAA and military detention flatly unconstitutional. The AUMF only applies to the people who actually attacked us on 911, not everyone we point a finger at ten years later and call them