Thu Mar 06, 2003 11:19 pm
This is a great read for everyone that likes the United States.
http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox/03/242.html
http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox/03/242.html
Thu Mar 06, 2003 11:58 pm
Kristov evades in the usual manner...
"Yes, America opted out of those treaties. Why don't you explain *why* that was done?"
No, Herr Kristov.......why don't you enlighten us all and explain it to us. I 'm sure we'd all be most interested to know.
Anton
"Yes, America opted out of those treaties. Why don't you explain *why* that was done?"
No, Herr Kristov.......why don't you enlighten us all and explain it to us. I 'm sure we'd all be most interested to know.
Anton
Fri Mar 07, 2003 12:51 am
Originally posted by Anton
Who undermined the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention by announcing (in July 2001) that it would not endorse a verification and monitoring protocol, which would require all signatories to submit to international inspections to ensure their compliance? .....Care to take stab?
You got it......the good 'ol USA.
I would say that I hate to nitpick, but since you never got back to me on how the U.S. was violating the terms of the Outer Space treaty, I feel that I must.
Please substantiate this statement with something other than your statement itself, or a reference to "Le Monde Diplomatique." I only ask this because I feel like you are getting away with some statements that seem authoritative, but either have no backup, or are demonstrably false. Also, I would appreciate a response regarding the Outer Space treaty, if you have time.
Fri Mar 07, 2003 2:19 am
The reasons are pretty simple. Usually, the treaties in question were no longer relevent, due to either technology updates or lack of other parties with any relevent ability or even government to deal with. Some we wouldn't agree to because of the lack of any enforcement in them, others due to the lack of any agreed standards, etc.
So, Anton, you gonna finally give Ralph an answer or keep evading him?
So, Anton, you gonna finally give Ralph an answer or keep evading him?
Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:35 pm
Ralph Wiggam requests references to support my 'claim' of the US's trashing of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty..
(....Goot Got!...Does this mean we are about to engage in some sort of rational dialogue!?....Ok Ralph, fair enough....)
As you may or may not know the Pentagon set up the 'US Space Command' in 1985. In it's "Vision 2020" report it describes itself this way:
"US Space Command dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating space forces into war-fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict."
...As a brief aside, notice the word "investment" in there....
At the United Nations - in November of 2000 - 160 member countries reaffirmed the basic international law on space (the Outer Space Treaty of 1967) and, in particular, its provision that space be reserved for solely "peaceful purposes".
The United States abstained on this vote....clearly because it intends to violate the Treaty and pursue the militarization of space.
Indeed, the logo of US Space Command....you guys should just love this.....is "Master of Space"....A logo that appears on Space Command uniforms and which has been painted on the entrance to the US Air Force's 50th Space Wing.
By way of acheiving this 'mastery of space' the US Space Command has enlisted the aid of all of the major aerospace corporations including: Aerojet, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc......These are listed in its "Long Range Plan".
One of the weapons already on the drawing boards is a space-based laser to be collaboratively developed by Lockheed Martin, Boeing and TRW....with a cool budget of almost $30 billion.
(As an aside it is worth pointing out that Vice-President Cheney is a former member of the TRW board and his wife, Lynn, a present member of the Lockheed board. Both are intimately related to the ultra-right-wing think tanks that have, for two decades now, been pushing for some version of 'Star Wars' (the - initially - Reaganite program to weaponize near-Earth orbit.)
If you're interested in pursuing this further, then I suggest you contact or research something like, Karl Grossman's (prof. of journalism at the State University of New York, and who has a book out entitled "The Wrong Stuff" detailing the US Space Command's history, purposes etc.
Try http://www.space4peace.org
Anton
(....Goot Got!...Does this mean we are about to engage in some sort of rational dialogue!?....Ok Ralph, fair enough....)
As you may or may not know the Pentagon set up the 'US Space Command' in 1985. In it's "Vision 2020" report it describes itself this way:
"US Space Command dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating space forces into war-fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict."
...As a brief aside, notice the word "investment" in there....
At the United Nations - in November of 2000 - 160 member countries reaffirmed the basic international law on space (the Outer Space Treaty of 1967) and, in particular, its provision that space be reserved for solely "peaceful purposes".
The United States abstained on this vote....clearly because it intends to violate the Treaty and pursue the militarization of space.
Indeed, the logo of US Space Command....you guys should just love this.....is "Master of Space"....A logo that appears on Space Command uniforms and which has been painted on the entrance to the US Air Force's 50th Space Wing.
By way of acheiving this 'mastery of space' the US Space Command has enlisted the aid of all of the major aerospace corporations including: Aerojet, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc......These are listed in its "Long Range Plan".
One of the weapons already on the drawing boards is a space-based laser to be collaboratively developed by Lockheed Martin, Boeing and TRW....with a cool budget of almost $30 billion.
(As an aside it is worth pointing out that Vice-President Cheney is a former member of the TRW board and his wife, Lynn, a present member of the Lockheed board. Both are intimately related to the ultra-right-wing think tanks that have, for two decades now, been pushing for some version of 'Star Wars' (the - initially - Reaganite program to weaponize near-Earth orbit.)
If you're interested in pursuing this further, then I suggest you contact or research something like, Karl Grossman's (prof. of journalism at the State University of New York, and who has a book out entitled "The Wrong Stuff" detailing the US Space Command's history, purposes etc.
Try http://www.space4peace.org
Anton
Fri Mar 07, 2003 7:30 pm
There are people in the US who believe that treaties are absolute, should always be followed, and should never be amended, regardless of the dangers that reveal themselves in this sometimes ugly world. I wonder why many of these are the same people who insist the US Constitution is a living document that should constantly change with every new fad or trend.
Don't panic, Anton. It's just an aside...
Don't panic, Anton. It's just an aside...
Fri Mar 07, 2003 10:16 pm
My reading of the treaty is that "objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction" are prohibited from space period and thus cannot be placed into orbit or on any celestial body. The treaty goes on to state that the "establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden." Based on this (admitedly legalistic) reading, only "nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction" are absolutely prohibited from outer space. Other types of weapons (e.g. SDI-type satellites) are not covered by this prohibition. Such weapons are only prohibited on celestial bodies.
Because some weapons could be allowed under the terms of the treaty, I do not see anything wrong, and certainly nothing contrary to the terms of the treaty, with our Space Command asserting that we will be, militarilty, "Masters of Space." In fact, I wouldn't have it any other way.
I will preempt the next post by pointing out that there really cannot be a spirit of the treaty. It reminds me of the comment, made by Leigh Steinberg the sports agent referring to the NFL salary cap, that arguing that something is contrary to the spirit of the salary cap is like saying somehting is contrary to the spirit of the tax code - there is no spirit of the tax code, there is only the tax code itself. In the same way, there cannot be a spirit of the treaty, only its express terms.
Finally, I will point out that designing and even testing weapons that would be potentially violative of the treaty does not appear to be proscribed, so long as the research or testing took place on Earth.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/ost/text/space1.htm
Because some weapons could be allowed under the terms of the treaty, I do not see anything wrong, and certainly nothing contrary to the terms of the treaty, with our Space Command asserting that we will be, militarilty, "Masters of Space." In fact, I wouldn't have it any other way.
I will preempt the next post by pointing out that there really cannot be a spirit of the treaty. It reminds me of the comment, made by Leigh Steinberg the sports agent referring to the NFL salary cap, that arguing that something is contrary to the spirit of the salary cap is like saying somehting is contrary to the spirit of the tax code - there is no spirit of the tax code, there is only the tax code itself. In the same way, there cannot be a spirit of the treaty, only its express terms.
Finally, I will point out that designing and even testing weapons that would be potentially violative of the treaty does not appear to be proscribed, so long as the research or testing took place on Earth.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/ost/text/space1.htm
Fri Mar 07, 2003 11:32 pm
Hey Doug... interesting link...
I also tried this... If you take a quarter and a sharpee, and draw 2 thick lines, then scribbley stuff on the lines, it would look surprisingly like the WTC towers..
I will admit though, the folding of the $20 is pretty interesting, but why in the world would people think the government would put "folded" messages on a bill?? What good does it do, and how many folds would it take to finally see what you want to see?
Some conspiracies are just waaaaay too far out!!
cool post though..
I also tried this... If you take a quarter and a sharpee, and draw 2 thick lines, then scribbley stuff on the lines, it would look surprisingly like the WTC towers..
I will admit though, the folding of the $20 is pretty interesting, but why in the world would people think the government would put "folded" messages on a bill?? What good does it do, and how many folds would it take to finally see what you want to see?
Some conspiracies are just waaaaay too far out!!
cool post though..
Sat Mar 08, 2003 1:04 am
After listening to the UN bullshit today, I for one would love to see Iraq say "fuck you" and not disarm. This way we can go in there and get this ass out.
http://www.caabu.org/campaigns/iraqi-exiles-letter.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-589171,00.html
http://www.caabu.org/campaigns/iraqi-exiles-letter.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-589171,00.html
Sat Mar 08, 2003 1:41 am
Hey Buttkrake, nice links. Just more evidence of "evil American imperialism.":D 
Sat Mar 08, 2003 1:43 am
Hey Doug, love the CHiPs avatar. You definately have a more worped sense of humor than I 
Sat Mar 08, 2003 8:35 am
[quote]Originally posted by COL.BUKKAKE
After listening to the UN bullshit today, I for one would love to see Iraq say "fuck you" and not disarm. This way we can go in there and get this ass out.
Speaking of the U.N., Check this out.
A report declassified by the UN yesterday contained the revelation that inspectors have recently discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone with a wingspan of 7.45m, the TIMES OF LONDON is reporting Saturday.
US officials are outraged that Hans Blix did not inform the Security Council about the remotely piloted vehicle in his oral presentation to Foreign Ministers and tried to bury it in a 173-page single-spaced report distributed later in the day.
The report also says there is 'credible information' indicating that 21,000 litres of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 litres of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the first Gulf War and was never destroyed.
I will post a link as soon as one is put up.
Allister Fiend
After listening to the UN bullshit today, I for one would love to see Iraq say "fuck you" and not disarm. This way we can go in there and get this ass out.
Speaking of the U.N., Check this out.
A report declassified by the UN yesterday contained the revelation that inspectors have recently discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone with a wingspan of 7.45m, the TIMES OF LONDON is reporting Saturday.
US officials are outraged that Hans Blix did not inform the Security Council about the remotely piloted vehicle in his oral presentation to Foreign Ministers and tried to bury it in a 173-page single-spaced report distributed later in the day.
The report also says there is 'credible information' indicating that 21,000 litres of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 litres of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the first Gulf War and was never destroyed.
I will post a link as soon as one is put up.
Allister Fiend
Sat Mar 08, 2003 10:36 am
Originally posted by COL.BUKKAKE
Hey Doug, love the CHiPs avatar. You definately have a more worped sense of humor than I
Don't sell yourself short. If it wasn't for you I'd only be a weirdo. With you around I'm just ANOTHER weirdo.
Sat Mar 08, 2003 10:40 am
Blix wants to dispute Powell's information, etc. Then he hides information from the US and UN concerning Iraqi weapons. Gee, that's cute.