Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (19729)	2/23/2002 5:30:59 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

FROM THE OFFICE OF STRATEGIC INFLUENCE You aren't representing them are you, BTW? dfw.com Posted on Sat, Feb. 23, 2002 A bad idea and some better ones Star-Telegram Molly Ivins AUSTIN - One rarely sees a thoroughly bad idea advanced by government. [[Ed.: No wonder Hitchens considers Kissinger and his ilk to be Stalinists!]] Lots of stuff from silly to smelly gets done, but somebody usually benefits, even if it's not the American people. But can anyone see an upside to having an office of government propaganda with an official license to lie? (uncle, you there?) They say if you fight someone long enough, you become like your enemy, but this Soviet notion is such a bummer that it was useless even to them back in the day. But the Bush administration is apparently determined to bring us not one but two bureaus of propaganda. The *"Office of Strategic Influence"* - isn't that a beauty? - at the Pentagon will use "the media, the Internet and a range of covert operations to try to influence public opinion and government policy abroad, including in friendly nations," according to The New York Times. "Strategic Influence" will include both information and disinformation. Disinformation, in case you haven't figured it out, is made of lies. Then on top of that gem, the Bush administration also proposes "a permanent office of global diplomacy to spread a positive image [[Ed.: Chances of success? Is this the OFFICE OF STRATEGIC IDIOCY? of the United States around the world and combat anti-Americanism." This would include "intense shaping of information and coordination of messages" to ensure that "foreign correspondents in Washington as well as foreign leaders and opinion-makers overseas understand Mr. Bush's ideas and policies." Let me go not very far out on a limb to predict this will be a disaster. It will wreck our credibility in no time. Sheesh, when will they ever learn? There are several documented cases of "blowback" from the Cold War, when we spread some lie and it came back to bite us in the rear. As any journalist can tell you, when you put out misinformation, all it does is poison the well of public debate. The Bushies are great believers in "message discipline" - they practiced it endlessly during the 2000 campaign. Oh, but facts are troublesome things. Not even giant public relations campaigns can make them go away. Did you sign up anywhere to have your tax dollars used for government propaganda? Do you like the idea? Let's kill this before it multiplies. If Bush wants to do something about anti-Americanism abroad, he could: - Get onboard the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and help save the world. - Stop our blind support of Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians and get serious about forcing a settlement in the face of that yawning disaster. We are more pro-Israeli than the Israelis, who have a humongous public debate about their own policies, which rather clearly aren't working. We could quit doing dumb stuff like: - Outraging world opinion by saying we won't treat the prisoners at Gitmo as POWs under the Geneva Conventions. - Appointing John Negroponte, a major figure in the Iran-contra mess, as ambassador to the United Nations. - Appointing Otto Reich, another high-level Iran-contra figure, as assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs. - Adding to the global warming problem by rescinding rules for improving energy efficiency in air conditioners and heaters, dropping Bush's campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide and canceling the 2004 deadline for automakers to develop prototype high-mileage cars. - Pushing for development of small nuclear weapons in violation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. - Banning federal aid to international family planning programs that offer abortion counseling with separate, independent funding. - Appointing John Bolton, who opposes nonproliferation treaties and the United Nations, to undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. - Continuing our own production of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons while lecturing the rest of the world for doing the same thing, including naming Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil" for doing exactly what we do. What does that make us? [[Ed.: Why, ummm, uhh, stammmer, oh, HYPOCRITES? ]] - Screwing up our ally South Korea's long-held plans to make some accommodation with the North. We can all think of several other things that America could do to improve the opinion the world holds of us - but running a propaganda campaign is not among them. Isn't it bad enough that we lead the world in contributing to air pollution - do we have to pollute the truth, too?

To: LindyBill who wrote (19729)	2/23/2002 8:05:11 PM
From: spiral3	Respond to of 281500

LB, The reason the Military is so expensive is that it is not run for a profit. I see where you’re coming from, but I would add that the more important missing motivation seems to be one of Accountability, a lack of which is anathema to every military man worth his brass. As recent events have shown wrt Henrun for eg, Profit and Accountability are often rather somewhat at odds with each other. The following is most disturbing if true. "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted. The War On Waste - (CBS) - Los Angeles, Jan. 29, 2002 Defense Department Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds — $2.3 Trillion cbsnews.com - wrt, This leads to a big cut in funding for Special forces According to Jane’s janes.com 19 February 2002 US Special Operations get budget boost By Michael Sirak, JDW Staff Reporter Washington DC The US Department of Defense (DoD) has proposed a 21% increase in the Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) budget for the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) that includes upgrades to helicopters and gunships heavily used in the military operations in Afghanistan. The $853 million increase brings USSOCOM's budget to $4.9 billion, representing about 1.3% of the DoD budget. The vital role of special operations forces (SOF) in Afghanistan is leading officials to call for greater resources so they can prepare to fight other potential "SOF wars". The USSOCOM will also share emergency funding made available to the DoD after 11 September. 100 of 542 Words [End of non-subscriber extract.] Global Military Expenditures - some perspective state.gov - anyone with more up to date aggregated &/or charted info plse post.

To: LindyBill who wrote (19729)	2/23/2002 9:15:56 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 281500

<75% of what we spend on the military is wasted. We just can't figure out any other way to do it. > I totally agree, one side-effect of a 2-party system, no long term, consenus strategy is possible in the domestic, holy, evil and good, fight, every little election. Ilmarinen Something the rest of the world is learning to live with, even use and abuse. (althought the EU has protested, and tries to handle UK)

To: LindyBill who wrote (19729)	2/23/2002 9:39:44 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I hope the government is getting better about procurement. I worked on a procurement case involving computers that had to have special sound-proof baffling so that hidden microphones could not discern the key strokes. My recollection is that from soliciting bids to actually getting the computers took over two years. I think the original specs were for a 386 and by the time the computers were delivered everyone was using 486s. But I am told that this process has been streamlined. I know how time consuming it is after bids are solicited - the machinery on the private side is very cumbersome. I was offered a procurement job at Navy long ago. Now I know if I had taken it I'd be working for a Beltway Bandit.-g- CB@toosoonoldtoolatesmart.com