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: Hawkmoon who wrote (186991)	5/20/2006 7:00:41 PM
From: see clearly now	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawkmoon..it's not a we or they situation any more its an US situation..how do we get out of this mess in a way that is a win win situation for everyone.....

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (186991)	5/20/2006 7:49:45 PM
From: GPS Info	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, What do you want to believe? Do we have enough reasons to attack Iranian nuclear facilities or overthrow their government? Are they an evil “cult” that wants to destroy Israel and the US as soon as possible with Soviet help? How many Islamic fascists do we need to kill to solve this threat? Can we remove the top leadership, or do we need to resurrect Operation Rolling Thunder on Tehran? How much do we spend to make this happen? None of the foreign policies of this administration appear to be a strategic attempt to find peace in the ME; these all look like a transfer of public wealth to private companies. An attack on Iran would be the final phase needed for emptying the US treasury for the benefit of Bush oil supporters and military contractors. For those Bush supporters without contracts in the ME, they’ll get tax cuts for the next two years. This will probably happen even if his poll numbers go down into the teens. The script that is playing out never was concerned about popularity. This was never about policing the world and countering real enemies; it was about predatory government and a collusion of corporations (Sun Tzu’s article) for a massive, open embezzlement of national funds. That’s my conspiracy theory. And so, IMO, everything else is meant to distract the public from understanding this central goal. Bush did this same thing with UTIMCO on a state level and someone decided to do the same on a national and international level. texasobserver.org Hawk, is there any way to get to testable assumptions on these views of yours? Can we start looking at all the information flowing through cyberspace without preconceptions? Do you feel that you’re a dispassionate observer? The Final Phase website thinks that the former Soviets and Chinese are preparing something “big” for the west. The site suggests that they started colluding since before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and now all the pieces are in place. <g> I personally find it hard to believe that after the Soviets surrendered the East Block countries to a better economic model, and after Poland, the Czech republic and others find prosperity in more open societies, they’ll all fall back under Russian and Chinese control after some masterstroke coming down the pike. I guess we’ll believe what we need to believe at some point or another. I grew up with Boris and Natasha concocting elaborate conspiracies to overthrow the simple-minded Rocky and Bullwinkle, and watching them fail due to some simple mishap, over and over again. thefinalphase.com Edward Jay Epstein addresses in his book, Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and CIA, a penchant of the West for hearing only what we want to hear, believing what we want to - or hope to - believe: First, the victim's leadership has to be in a state of mind to want to accept and act on the disinformation it receives from its own intelligence. This might not happen unless the disinformation fits in with the adversary's prevailing preconceptions or interests - which is, at least in the case of the United States, not difficult to determine. Angleton suggested that Lenin showed he understood this principle when he instructed his intelligence chief in 1921, in crafting disinformation, to "Tell them what they want to hear." Second, the victim has to be in a state of mind in which he is so confident of his own intelligence that he is unwilling to entertain evidence, or even theories, that he is or can be duped. This kind of blanket denial amounts to a conceit, which Angleton claimed could be cultivated in an adversary, that one's rival lacks the wherewithal and competence to hide its activities, organize disinformation, and penetrate its ranks. If it proved wrong, it left a nation defenseless against deception.