Have the Raelians cloned Chumpsky?
Yes - crossbred with Halo13.
The fiends.
The US used it’s power to block the sale of food and medicine to Iraq over the last ten years…
Actually, aahh, um. that did happen. We eventually allowed some food and medicine into the country… Get this, from the goodness of our hearts, humanitarian reasons? Nopers, for fucking oil. Amazing. We even called it ‘food for oil’.
Sigh. I was an Intel specialist during the Persian Gulf War (PGW). You would not believe the things that occured there, or in OMG the former Yugoslav Republic… Atrocities of a scale I honestly don’t think has been seen since Genghis roamed the steppe. And nothing, I mean absolutely nothing was done to help them. - Not to put too cynical a spin on it, but there was no money in it.
Some day, ask about what happened to a bunch of our Spec Ops guys in the PGW and we’ll start another FotD…
Sure you were. Using your secret keyboard no doubt.
:rolleyes:
Everytime you press the Shift Key, a Looney gets his delusions!
So you made computer chips in the early 90s. Big deal.
I swear the biggest single problem with the American education is the concept of scale. I’m going to paste a link, please read it. He has taken the time to collect and collate quite a bit of data that is pertinent to this topic.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/smallarms/2002/0321useeds.htm
Here are a few paras for those that don’t wish to go there:
… now that some pesky arms export controls had been lifted by the Bush administration. Bush wanted to reward Pakistan for its cooperation in the hunt for Osama bin Laden by lifting an arms export ban on Pakistan. To maintain the balance of power in the region, he had to do the same for India. Now some analysts worry that the two nuclear powers are on the verge of a potentially costly and destabilizing arms race, if not outright war.
America’s defense industry is clearly big business at home the 2003 budget of $360 billion represents nearly half the total of all world military procurement spending. While such a sizable outlay naturally draws its share of critics, it is America’s comparatively smaller arms-for-export industry that can generate even more controversy.
… as much as $2 billion in direct arms shipments from the United States flooded into Afghanistan and Pakistan during the 1980s, arming the Taliban and arguably contributing to this previously obscure group of Islamic radicals seizing power in 1994.
This is likely to be good news for U.S. arms manufacturers. At approximately $800 billion annually, the military procurement industry is, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, perhaps the world’s single largest market; the $400 billion global trade in illicit drugs is a distant second. In recent years, U.S. arms manufacturers have reached a market dominance that would be the envy of other manufacturing sector leaders. Twelve of the world’s top 20 arms-producing companies are located in the United States.
In 1989, the then Soviet Union was the planet’s major weapons supplier, exporting nearly $20 billion in arms to Warsaw Pact and other client states most in the developing world. That year, the United States delivered just $17.3 billion in arms exports. The lion share of its exports$12.2 billion went to its NATO allies in the economically developed world. But with the collapse of the Iron Curtain, a noisy queue of new customers, no longer required to hand over company script for inferior weaponry at the Soviet Union’s threadbare commissary, has been lining up at “Arms 'R U.S.” to purchase more sophisticated and expensive American-made weapons packages.
By 1999, according to the most recent data released by the U.S. State Department’s World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers (WMEAT) report, the arms-export market experienced a sharp reversal. Economically beleaguered Russia exported only $3.1 billion in arms while the U.S. shipped $33 billion in weaponry-half of the world exports of supersonic combat fighters, more than one third of all land armaments. The U.S. in 1999 managed to control an eye-popping 64 percent of the global total of $51.6 billion in arms exports.
the State Department and the Pentagon have actually taken a very active role in promoting arms sales. The syndrome became acute during the Clinton administration when arms exports doubled but shows no sign of diminishing now.
Though the arms-export trade can mean billions of dollars in sales to specific companies… the entire arms-export industry represents only a tiny fraction of total U.S. export trade some $30 billion in annual sales out of a total export volume that typically approaches or exceeds $1 trillion each year. She adds that in terms of creating new jobs or an overall multiplier effect throughout the economy, federal dollars invested in the arms industry which has become synonymous with waste and redundancy realize fewer gains than they would if directed at propping up or energizing virtually any other U.S. manufacturing sector.
One of the most troubling aspects of the arms-export industry is the impact it has on particularly vulnerable societies in the developing world. Between 1993 and 2000, arms deliveries to developing nations comprised 68 percent of all such deliveries worldwide. In 2000, the United States ranked first in arms exports to developing nations, accounting for almost half of all such deliveries.
Currently the U.S. Is not engaged in an ongoing export-controls negotiation being conducted among the world’s other arms manufacturing heavyweights: Germany, Great Britain, France, Sweden, Italy, and Spain.
In 1999, 80 percent of the arms exports out of Great Britain and France went to developing nations.
Sigh… I get so angry at this crap, I literally start shaking and have to close my web browser for a while. But please, if you REALLY want to know, follow this link for more about the topic.
Hmm, a leftist nutball who cuts and pastes his posts from elsewhere and who has a hard-on for Yugoslavia. How original.
And uses nice completely unbiased websites as cites. Oh wait. . .
Man it sure is cold with the wind blowing today, I wish I could find something to keep my feet warm.
:dubious:
Stop…it…you’re…killing…him!
Hhhm, I’ve gotten the BS flag when I posted in my words, now it’s BS for cut/paste from UN Data?
Believe it or not - doesn’t really matter to me - I am an American Patriot. Served my country with distinction and honor, carried the highest security clearance that this nation has. And I would personally like to stick my foot up George’s ass for the incredibly stupid decisions he’s made.
But to be fair, it’s not his fault, and really not the fault of the bastards he’s surrounded by. This generation - and the next several generations - are going to pay for the sins of their fathers. I wish you all luck.
Oh, and almost forgot… I’m not saying the US or any other developed nation should crawl into it’s shell and write off the world.
What I am saying is: Stop Exporting Weapons.
If it affects the bottom line, oh fucking well. Make a new product.
Oh, and read the damn link at the bottom of my last post. It was specifically on small arms (no pundits please) and how it affects developing nations.
From his cite, which is not the UN, but merely has links to UN articles. Let’s see what bias that group has. In their own words: [Bolding mine]
A group of citizens from several countries founded Global Policy Forum in December 1993 to monitor global policy making at the United Nations. At a time of rapid globalization, when nation states are weakening, the founders of GPF wanted to promote a more open, accountable and democratic policy process at the global level. Seeing the UN as the most open and universal institution, they sought to make it more responsive to citizen concerns, and so to foster democracy, social justice, human rights and mutual solidarity.
Hmm, with all the anti-globalization language I wonder what the bias is here. . .
But wait there’s more:
The UN Charter’s preamble speaks of a determination “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” and it proposes “to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.” But over fifty years later, with worsening poverty and a deepening environmental crisis, the global economic system and the UN’s capacity seem tragically flawed. Fundamental change is urgent to assure the future of human life on the planet. This page leads to information on global social and economic policy issues, with a primary focus on the UN and the “Three Sisters” of global economic policy making – the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. The page also includes materials on multinational corporations, financial markets and other private institutions that affect global well being.
and:
Global Governance and the Three Sisters
The World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO wield tremendous power and influence, especially in the developing world, but many critics accuse the three institutions of lacking democratic decision-making processes, transparency, and accountability.
World Bank
A variety of articles on the Bank, which is based in Washington, DC, and does most of its lending to governments of poor countries for development projects. While the Bank insists that “fighting poverty” is its first priority, many critics believe instead that it is responsible for rising poverty. This extensive page is indispensable for monitoring global policy-making.
There was ton more stuff about evil corporations ect. . ., but you get the point. Go to the link yourself and poke around.
Nice try.
Could it be…
Dare I mention…
I can’t… I won’t …
It couldn’t be …
Someone who was an AGENT previously in his life?
Perhaps FORMERly?
I’ve said too much.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by elf6c *
**From his cite, which is not the UN, but merely has links to UN articles. Let’s see what bias that group has. In their own words: [Bolding mine]
As for the UN comment. DOH. ya got me. What I should have said is it was UN information as reported and posted by a lobby group. If you read about them - GPF, they’re housed at the UN in a relationship sort of like OXFAM, Feed the Children and other heh, leeches from the underbelly of that org. Not saying these fine organizations aren’t doing useful things, mind you; just the nature of the beast.
But my friend it’s about the DATA… 
Here, so as not to have to argue about who bought what, or any other semantic bs, is the link to the US report:
http://state.gov/t/vc/rls/rpt/wmeat/
LoL amazingly we’re back to selling a buttload of weaps to the Iranians again.
Well in regard to the OP’s claims, I really don’t buy that he ever worked for Army intelligence. For one thing, the genuine article never admits his job description, even after separation–it’s not something they talk about. Second, nobody calls it “Intel.” Third, “carried the highest security clearance that this nation has” is not a big deal. There are only three levels, Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential, and getting these clearances is just a matter of passing the requisite background checks, which can be pretty thorough.
Somebody sounds like a wannabe.
Moreover, the level of clearance the OP has claimed is reinvestigated every 5 years, so if he separated more than 5 years ago, he is certainly no longer in the know.
… insert short bio here:
Actually, I don’t talk about what I did, (heh, had to sign away the right to talk about a portion of my life for 99 years), they DID give me a separation package on what I could and couldn’t say to describe my ‘job’.
Among those bullets I was allowed to use for my Resume:
Top Secret (SCI) clearance. In this particular case it meant that I participated in acquiring and then deciding on the classification of that data; then I and others at my place of work decided who got to read it. No big secret that our primary ‘client’ was the NSA.
(heh, not too long ago, I couldn’t even have said N.S.A… amazing).
Russian Intelligence Analyst. Again in this case I had what is usually termed as ‘all-source’ information at my disposal to try and figure out what those pesky Russians were doing in a particular region of the world.
Job assignments:
Worked in providing intelligence support during the Persian Gulf War… That was about all I can say on that one.
Worked in support of UN Resolutions… in support of the blockade of the Former Yugoslav Republic. Also, pretty… much… it. ack.
Other than that, I sharpened pencils for the gov’t.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and several base closings, there was a glut on Russian Analysts; also I’d spent way too many years away from my wife and daughter (she was 2 and a half when I got out and I’d seen her 6 weeks). I’d just finished an extended overseas tour and because of my particular expertise, the US Navy insisted I stay another tour overseas…
Can you say: ‘See ya’?
Now… That is a certainty. I got out in the early 90s, and have no interest in playing those reindeer games ever again. And damn glad that I’m past the recall mark. But regarding the data I posted, I still to this day do not quote any technical information unless I have a copy of Jane’s in front of me, or some other source whose numbers we can ‘assume’ (heh) are the right ones.
But this stuff is from our State Dept. and/or the UN. and it shows that the US has, to put it mildly, stepped up it’s small arms sales that is off the scale…
Interesting. Can you explain why you thought Russia supplied us with more than 50 percent of our imported oil? I mean, since you were a Russian analyst, and all.
Heh, Sauron… My bag, I ‘spoke’ - major sin - w/o data in hand. Here’s a link with data as current as Nov. 2002.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/security/esar/latpet.html
The top sources of U.S. crude oil imports in November 2002 were Mexico (1.531 million barrels per day), Canada (1.485 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.474 million barrels per day), and Venezuela (1.438 million barrels per day). This is the first time since July 2002 in which Mexico was the leading source of U.S. crude oil imports. Rounding out the top ten sources, in order, were United Kingdom (0.632 million barrels per day), Nigeria (0.556 million barrels per day), Angola (0.390 million barrels per day), Norway (0.388 million barrels per day), Iraq (0.380 million barrels per day), and Kuwait (0.230 million barrels per day). Of the 9.527 million barrels per day of crude oil imported into the United States during the month of November 2002, the top four countries accounted for 62% of these imports, while the top ten sources accounted for 89% of all U.S. crude oil imports. Russian crude oil imports, after averaging at least 0.100 million barrels per day in the previous three months, averaged 0.085 million barrels per day, ranking 14th for the month (behind the top 10 countries mentioned above as well as Colombia, Ecuador, and Gabon).
There’s currently a large project (I read in a European article that the estimate was $5 billion - Crazy money for the Russians) to build a major pipeline to increase Russian output. But their ability to replace the Saudis as a major source of crude oil is many years in the future.
I looked it up, and according to one source OPEC supplies the US with 51% of our oil imports… I transposed the one stat for the one that was directly above it that related to Russia. doh. My apologies sir.