Menu
 News
 Search
 Topics
 Stories Archive
 Submit News
 Discussions
 Code of Conduct
 Forums
 Forum Search
 Last 24 Hours
 PO 24hrs
 Peak Blog
 Ask Jane
 Resources
 About Us
 Downloads
 Web Links
 PeakWiki
 PeakPortal
 Focus Search
 Peak TV
 Peak Oil Boston
 Houston Peak Oil
 Follow on Twitter
 Members
 User Panel
 Members List
 PO Team
 JOIN!
 Private Messages
 
Support PeakOil.com
Visit Our Advertisers
 
Aaron Needs Help
 

Beason Law Firm
Net App Training
Aaron





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 500 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 34  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 8:31 am 
Offline
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 205
Location: Britain
I'd expect more armed resistance in the US than in Europe, simply because more people are armed. Europe would probably see a lot of rioting, maybe some stuff getting blown up but not much co-ordinated resistance.

What would they be fighting for? "Change", I bet. Change of Government, more precisely, people would push extremely hard to force their old way of life back in to place.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:55 am 
Offline
Expert
Expert
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 3381
Location: California, USA
First let's get the terminology somewhere close to correct. I see a lot of terms being used interchangeably in ways that aren't accurate.

Terrorism, insurgency, insurrection, and civil war are different things entirely. Key distinctions: fraction of the population engaged, objective/goal, and combatant or noncombatant status of intended targets.

Terrorism: Waged by a small minority of a relevant population, though it may have larger popular support for its cause. Objective is to coerce a government into granting specific concessions. Means are the use of force specifically targeted against noncombatants.

Insurgency: Waged by a slightly larger minority, to at most a small plurality. Objective is to produce a change of government, or to eject an occupying power. Means are the use of force specifically targeted against the combatants who represent the government in question.

Insurrection or armed revolution: Waged by a sizeable plurality or even a majority. Objective is to remove the existing government of their territory from power entirely, setting the stage for creation of a new government. Means are the use of force primariy against combatants of the existing government.

Civil war: Waged by a moderate to large plurality, or even a majority. Objective is to disempower or displace another constituency within its own society, or to emplace its own constituency in a position of greater power. Means are the use of force against the opposing constituency, including both combatants and noncombatants.

---

What I hear a lot of folks here describing as a scenario, should really be referred to as civil war.

---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:32 pm 
Offline
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:00 am
Posts: 381
kochevnik wrote:
Cador, you're a genius :) (seriously)

Sometime in the next 15 years, the United States Federal Government will overstep the bounds of human decency (again) and this time really stick their foot in it. The event I am thinking of will result in the deaths of many people (thousands at a minimum)

Falujah

and it will put to rest once and for all the question of FedGov's humanity. If it occurs overseas the event will most likely be some large war crime (like using chemical / biological / nuclear weapons against a defense-less people).

Again, Falujah. We used napalm, which is a chemical weapon. We used depleted uranium rounds which vaporize on contact and pollute the area for some ridiculous amount of time causing cancer and birth defects. I can't decide if this is the use of nuclear weapons or chemical weapons, but it's one of the two.

The resulting international outcry will be for real this time and not the timid whimperings we hear in response to the Iraq War now. The response will be real too.

We are not hearing timid whimperings. Millions of people have demonstrated worldwide. This has never happened before in the history of humanity.

If the event occurs internally (which seems more likely to me) it might take the form of the jailing of thousands of 'enemy-combatant' US citizens overnight.

We've jailed hundreds. Does that count?

Or maybe it will simply be the imposition of slow starvation of city or region which refuses to cowtow to FedGov's demands. Or perhaps the confiscation of guns from areas of the US participating in ongoing food riots. Whatever the spark finally is, when the energy shortages do finally appear for real, the pain will begin for real. And this time, it's going to be Joe Sixpack and his family who will bear the brunt of the suffering, not some nameless brown-skinned 'heathen' shown on the evening news.

It'll be a minor increase in the current unbelievable atrocities that we are currently undertaking, such as the torture of prisoners who are not charged with any crimes held for years without access to family or lawyers, some of whom have been beaten to death.

You know, since deciding to educate myself about politics, I've been just totally overwhelmed with how horrible US foreign policy is. We are so violent, and so careless, and so greedy. It turns my stomach. Even my "liberal" buddies fully support US war crimes, fully understanding that this is the kind of shit that got the Nazis hung at Nuremburg. It's just incredible. I always thought we were the good guys, but we're not.


Americans have lost the capacity to suffer for the common good. Selfishness is endemic. There will be no soft landing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Root causes of terrorism ignored
New postPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:37 pm 
Offline
Fusion
Fusion
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 3494
Location: 39° 39' N 77° 77' W or thereabouts
How much longer will we see articles from Peak Oil ignorant (or is that denialist?) writers beating around the bush about the energy issue? :sigh: (and when will there be a "sigh" emontion?) [smilie=tongue8.gif]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/2 ... get15.html
Quote:
A more effective strategy against terrorism would focus on: winning the struggle of ideas, investing in education and development in Islamic nations, defusing sources of Islamic hatred toward the United States by changing our policies in the region, bolstering efforts to cut off terrorist financing and investing in energy independence by developing sustainable energy.

The gargantuan Pentagon budget of $419.3 billion is devouring tax money at well over a billion dollars a day, not including a supplemental request for $80 billion to fund the Iraq war. Is it any wonder why we are starving public education, health care for 45 million uninsured Americans, environmental cleanup, services for the elderly, Head Start and a host of other programs?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:04 pm 
Offline
Dark Lord
Dark Lord
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 5112
Now BabyPeanut - you don't really want the truth to come out. The crash in the economy would be inconvenient at best - for all of us. 8)

_________________
Dieoff. Fun to watch. Better with hot buttered popcorn! [smilie=new_popcornsmiley.gif]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:36 pm 
Offline
Expert
Expert
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 3381
Location: California, USA
There have lately been editorials in the NY Times talking about the "geo-green" perspective ("geopolitical green"), that we should go for energy independence as a matter of national security. Obvious common sense, has been since Jimmy Carter first started talking about the issue.

I've also seen a self-described conservative blogger calling for the same, and wondering whether the right will embrace conservation before the left embraces energy production.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: U.S. Using Anti-Terror War to Gain World Oil Reserves [1]
New postPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:12 am 
Offline
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 86
Location: Cyberspace
U.S. Using Anti-Terror War to Gain World Oil Reserves -Soviet Intelligence Chief
image Leonid Shebarshin, ex-chief of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service, who heads the Russian National Economic Security Service consulting company

On the pretext of fighting international terrorism the United States
is trying to establish control over the world's richest oil reserves,
Leonid Shebarshin, ex-chief of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service,
who heads the Russian National Economic Security Service consulting
company, said in an interview for the Vremya Novostei newspaper.
Using the anti-terrorist cause as a cover the United States has occupied
Afghanistan, Iraq and will soon move to impose their "democratic order."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: U.S. Using Anti-Terror War to Gain World Oil Reserves [2]
New postPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:09 pm 
Offline
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude

Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 731
U.S. Using Anti-Terror War to Gain World Oil Reserves — Soviet Intelligence Chief

[quote]On the pretext of fighting international terrorism the United States is trying to establish control over the world’s richest oil reserves, Leonid Shebarshin, ex-chief of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service, who heads the Russian National Economic Security Service consulting company, said in an interview for the Vremya Novostei newspaper.

Using the anti-terrorist cause as a cover the United States has occupied Afghanistan, Iraq and will soon move to impose their “democratic orderâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:13 pm 
Offline
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 803
A bit slow isn’t he? I guess that’s why he is in the intelligence


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: U.S. Using Anti-Terror War to Gain World Oil Reserves
New postPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:21 pm 
Offline
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 86
Location: Cyberspace
MarioPro wrote:
[url=http://mprofaca.cro.net/nothing30.gif]gif and gif and ] Leonid Shebarshin[/url]
gif and gif (related news)


[URL=http://josephbosco.com/shebarshin.html]THE BEAR IN WINTER:
The Last Chairman of the KGB Spymaster, General Leonid Shebarshin[/URL]
General Leonid Shebarshin ran the agents that ran Aldrich Ames and
Robert Philip Hanssen. He read Presidents Reagan's and Bush's CIA
briefings almost simultaneously with the American Commanders-In-Chief.
He is the man every spy on all sides respectedand feared as a
"pro's pro," and a "soldier's soldier."
General Shebarshin, officially "retired" from service, remains a man
of legendary status among his peers, many of whom he employs in his
private security company (which is almost a "shadow KGB"). He is an
unrepentant Communist who still believes in the spirit of Marxism and
class struggle. In word or deed, he is not a "defector," which is the only
category of former KGB officers the West has heard from over the past
decade.

Source: Joseph Bosco Joseph Bosco is an author and journalist who is currently a Visiting Professor of Literature at Xiamen University, P.R. China.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:19 pm 
Offline
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:00 am
Posts: 905
Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S
Tell us something we don't know.

E.g. has this retd. General represented Putin in the past (by floating possibly controvertial plans or issuing proclamations like this), or is he acting privately/on retainer via his security business, representing some other interests? Or is he a public spirited citizen of the world calling it like he see's it?

I can't see why the ruskies, or anyone with a real seat at the table, would blow the gaff on our elites (by drawing attention to resource depletion crisis), to do so would have to reduce own options, assuming there is still room to maneuver. Unless they're willing to risk it cos neocons too nutty/greedy to work with, or time is short.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:14 am 
Offline
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 86
Location: Cyberspace
Liamj wrote:
Tell us something we don't know.

E.g. has this retd. General represented Putin in the past (by floating possibly controvertial plans or issuing proclamations like this), or is he acting privately/on retainer via his security business, representing some other interests? Or is he a public spirited citizen of the world calling it like he see's it?


You better ask Joseph Bosco, the author
Image mailto:joseph@josephbosco.com

MarioPro :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Abu Gharib - Iraqi Prisoners really aren't Terrorists
New postPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:16 pm 
Offline
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 882
I was reading this:
I just can't help but thinking; what the hell are they doing?

Quote:
DELGADO: There were 4,000 to 6,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib. I got to work with a lot of officers, so I got to see the paperwork. I found out that a lot of prisoners were imprisoned for no crime at all. They were not insurgents. Some were inside for petty theft or drunkenness. But the majority—over 60 percent—were not imprisoned for crimes committed against the coalition.

Q: How did so many noncombatants get imprisoned?

DELGADO: Every time our base came under attack, we sent out teams to sweep up all men between the ages of 17 and 50. There were random sweeps. The paperwork to get them out of prison took six months or a year. It was hellish inside. A lot of completely innocent civilians were in prison camp for no offense. It sounds completely outrageous. But look at the 2005 Department of Defense Report, where it talks about prisoners.



So, most of these prisoners were just apart of sweeps. Taking random people and imprisoning them. Not only that, it took alot of work to get them out from their family. That's not exactly how you win the 'hearts and minds'. Then..

Quote:
Q: Were there any other incidents?

DELGADO: The worst incident that I was privy to was in late November. The prisoners were protesting nightly because of their living conditions. They protested the cold, the lack of clothing, the rotting food that was causing dysentery. And they wanted cigarettes. They tore up pieces of clothing, made banners and signs. One demonstration became intense and got unruly. The prisoners picked up stones, pieces of wood, and threw them at the guards. One of my buddies got hit in the face. He got a bloody nose. But he wasn't hurt. The guards asked permission to use lethal force. They got it. They opened fire on the prisoners with the machine guns. They shot twelve and killed three. I know because I talked to the guy who did the killing. He showed me these grisly photographs, and he bragged about the results. "Oh," he said, "I shot this guy in the face. See, his head is split open." He talked like the Terminator. "I shot this guy in the groin, he took three days to bleed to death." I was shocked. This was the nicest guy you would ever want to meet. He was a family man, a really courteous guy, a devout Christian. I was stunned and said to him: "You shot an unarmed man behind barbed wire for throwing a stone." He said, "Well, I knelt down. I said a prayer, stood up and gunned them all down." There was a complete disconnect between what he had done and his own morality.


I've seen this 'disconnect' before with 'christians' (although I think the morality/ethicality applies to everyone and not just christians, I think its a sad that some people think you have to be a 'christian' to be a good person. :cry: ) But, most of the time, the infractions are minor (and stupid, and most of the time selfish, such as stealing a boyfriend by lying about how he hooked up with a girl at a party and said he didn't have a girlfriend. Stupid crap teenage crap though (but hey, when are you going to grow up? Just as you turn 20? 21?).)

The whole article is an eye-opener to me. Is the Iraq war as good as it sounds? Is it spreading democracy in Iraq? Or is it now that the U.S. has to threaten less people and do less work to get their oil?

_________________
https://www.videogamevoters.org/ http://www.savetheinternet.com/ http://www.votersforpeace.us/index.jsp
www.911myths.com - To the 9/11-ers, give it some thought.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
New postPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:53 am 
Offline
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 1182
Dont read it!!!!

Listen to it.

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/reportback_from_iraq.mp3


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: There Is No War On Terrorism
New postPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:06 pm 
Offline
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude

Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 1940
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Hmm, they must be taking notes from 1984.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU

Brigadier shocks and awes: there is no war on terrorism

By Cynthia Banham
Defence Reporter


04/27/05 "SMH" - - The so-called global war on terrorism does not exist, a high-ranking army officer has declared in a speech that challenges the conventional political wisdom.

In a frank speech, Brigadier Justin Kelly dismissed several of the central tenets of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism, saying the "war" part is all about politics and terrorism is merely a tactic.

Although such wars were fuelled by global issues, they were essentially counter-insurgent operations fought on a local level. This would result in Australian soldiers fighting in increasingly urban environments.

Speaking at a conference on future warfighting, Brigadier Kelly, the director-general of future land warfare, also suggested that the "proposition you can bomb someone into thinking as we do has been found to be untrue".

His speech appears to fly in the face of a comment by the Prime Minister, John Howard, last year that the "contest in Iraq represents a critical confrontation in the war against terror ..."

The brigadier said populations were being cut off from their traditional roots, giving them "aspirations that cannot be immediately met", and fuelling a search for identity.

Terrorists were exploiting local issues - such as ethnic wars - to pursue global ends. From a military point of view, the job was now one of counter-insurgency, he said.

As a result, Australia's future soldiers would fight increasingly close to populations, with the enemy "continuing to retreat into complex terrain".

While success in battle was critical, it would not of itself deliver victory - that would come by winning over the hearts and minds of the local people.

The war of the future would be "out of human control". There was "no alternative" but to engage the population and "convince them of your rightness".

"Our proximity to populations enables us to influence and control the populations, [it] enables us to dominate the environment, generate intelligence and eventually bring the conflict to a resolution," the brigadier told the conference last week.

To fight such a war, a new kind of soldier was needed - one not only proficient in the latest technologies, but who had been educated in "cultural understanding" and sensitivity.

Brigadier Kelly said modern war could be defined as "conflict, using violent and non-violent means, between multiple actors and influences, competing for control over the perceptions, behaviour and allegiances of human population groups".

He said he found it interesting that "if you take out violence out of the first line, it's a description of politics".

Fair Use--Copyright © 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald.

_________________
Here Lies the United States Of America.

July 04, 1776 - June 23 2005

Epitaph: "The Experiment Is Over."

Rest In Peace.

Eminent Domain Was The Murderer.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 500 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 34  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Atom News Feed   Forums RSS Feed