April 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

People converting to the winning side...
by Tim May 12 Apr '03

12 Apr '03

I'm not surprised to see some of my friends and associates (not necessarily on this list...I actually do interact with people off-list) switching sides from being "anti-war" to the other side. They natter about how Saddam was a tyrant (true enough, and there are a hundred other such tyrants), to how he must have had the magical word WMD (no evidence so far, and he certainly didn't use them when he should have), and how this will prove to the A-rabs that America stands tall (debatable). I think of this as warporn. Seeing the tanks blowing up stuff, seeing the "embedded" reporters riding atop the Bradley fighting vehicles like Lawrence of Arabia, seeing what a trillion dollars of defense spending can put into the skies over Iraq...all a kind of warporn. I was and am against the war for a very straightforward and principled reason: it is not a valid function of United States government to be the world's policemen, to be going around removing national figures we have decided we don't like. Whether it results in cheaper oil for Chevron (at the expense of one hundred billion dollars for the rest of us) is not a basis for starting a war. (Oh, I forgot...Congress shall have the power to declare war....but they didn't. This is one of those "police actions" that are not actual legal wars. Maybe the vets should be denied the special pay and death benefits accruing in actual wars.) The U.S. claimed Saddam was a monstrous threat, with a powerful army, with huge caches of "WMD." (Sounds like Israel. Sounds like India. Sounds like Pakistan. Sounds like us, the U.S.) The U.N. inspectors were unable to find the supposed WMD. (The Al-Samoud missile being a pathetic example where the missile met the allowable range with a warhead mounted, but failed the allowable range without a warhead...so the U.S. decided the missile without a warhead was a "WMD" because it exceeded the b.s. allowable range by a handful of miles. Something out of a Saturday Night Live sketch.) The U.N. was unable to find the supposed huge caches...and so far the swarming U.S. troops have failed to do so. Rummy keeps saying "We know they're there...we'll find them soon." (This is about time for Rummy to tell the CIA to throw down the throw down gun.) The Iraqi army was what it has always appeared to be: a Turd World primitive army based on graft and corruption and intimidation of non-officers by officer toadies. In other words, not a serious fighting force. And yet they were portrayed as threatening the world. As Chomsky notes, the Big Lie has been hinted at in such a way that more than half the sheeple in the U.S. are now convinced that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. (This whole episode ought to be a major new chapter in "Manufacturing Consent.") I am ashamed of this once liberty-seeking nation and I am ashamed of my friends and associates who have fallen for the warporn and embraced the current imperialism. --Tim May "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain

2 1

Anonymous blogging experiment
by zem 11 Apr '03

11 Apr '03

A few weeks back on the cryptography list someone asked about anonymous blogging software and hosting. I've put together a simple system which I think meets the requirements: a remailer/PGP interface to a weblog hosting service. It needs testing, so I'm offering free hosting to a few anonymous bloggers to help try it out. Familiarity with mixmaster and PGP or GPG is required. Replies via remailer and PGP only please. Fingerprint is listed below. Make sure you include a public key and either a working nym or instructions on how I can contact you. -- mailto:zem@vigilant.tv F289 2BDB 1DA0 F4C4 DC87 EC36 B2E3 4E75 C853 FD93 http://vigilant.tv/ "..I'm invisible, I'm invisible, I'm invisible.." --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)wasabisystems.com

1 0

Ari Fleisher on hit list?
by Major Variola (ret) 11 Apr '03

11 Apr '03

http://www.thisislondon.com/til/jsp/modules/Article/print.jsp?itemId=4321901 The US military has issued a most-wanted list of 55 former leaders in Saddam Hussein's regime to be pursued, captured or killed. ... Brooks did not identify figures on the list, except to suggest they included Saddam and his minister of information, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, who boasted of battlefield successes right up to the time he disappeared Tuesday. Information ministers as war criminals? Careful with that hegemony, George.

3 2

Quote of the day: Another CI Chief Goes Down
by Major Variola (ret) 11 Apr '03

11 Apr '03

"If a determined person is bent on espionage, no security system can prevent him. I say "him" because, interestingly, very few espionage subjects have been women," he wrote. "I've always wondered why that is. Women must be more reliable and trustworthy. (My wife is reading this, so I had to say that.)" ---William Cleveland Jr., head of counter intelligence programs at Livermore, who was fucking a double-agent who passed nuke secrets to the chinese http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/200…

1 0

Re: "Stay Behind" strategies in Iraq
by Tyler Durden 11 Apr '03

11 Apr '03

Variola wrote... "Odd to see you underestimate the capabililties of a blood & oil crazed US unencumbered by even shreds of a bill of rights." Could it be that Tim May is just a great big optimist at heart? -TD >From: "Major Variola (ret)" <mv(a)cdc.gov> >To: "cypherpunks(a)lne.com" <cypherpunks(a)lne.com> >Subject: Re: "Stay Behind" strategies in Iraq >Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:17:17 -0700 > >(resent) >At 10:51 PM 4/10/03 -0700, Tim May wrote: > >On Thursday, April 10, 2003, at 08:04 PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > >> > >> Ok, the Iraqis will work in the 7-11s which serve the yankees. > >> Some Iraqis will do better. They will inspire others. They will > >> also be used by psyops to argue for "the american dream" for > >> Iraqis. And although exploited by psyops, I think all humans > >> want to improve their circumstance. > > > >You're arguing for what you would like to see, whereas what I'm talking > > >about is that there is unlikely to be any surge in employment in this > >hand-out nation. > >Not what I'd like to see; what the US will encourage. The US >(or its puppets) will use .iq's oil money to pay for .iq reconstruction >jobs, >and then steady-state jobs. To think otherwise is to ignore the >motivations and means of the USG. > > >There simply is no prospect that significantly more than the small > >fraction of Iraqis who now service the oil industry will be employed. > >Doubling oil production, which is essentially impossible, would only > >double a small number...or not quite double, as newer facilities will > >be even more automated. > >So use oil money to create agricultural projects which use lots >of labor. Iraq has water. (When we take Saudi Arabia we >can build desalination plants..) > >I'm saying that if the problems you describe arise, the USG >will try to reduce them, for the USG's benefit. I don't see >how you can ignore the 800 lb gorilla with the A-10 backup. >I don't see how observing this makes me socialist. Analyst, >maybe, socialist, no. > > > >Meanwhile, most of the nation's 20,000,000 will continue to rely on > >handouts. > >I said that no major ghetto/slum area, whether Calcutta or > >South-Central LA or Baghdad has ever, in memory, gone to nearly full > >employment. I'm a libertarian, not a do-gooder: > >So am I. But I recognize the existance of non-libertarian agents >like the USG and their ability to use resources (oil) for social >placation. Social placation which favors USG interests. > >Shit, a lot of Americans will admit (if pressed) that USG domestic >welfare >is to prevent the South Centrals from rioting. And Iraq is not even >burdened with those US pathologies or the US constitution. > > >> Yes, the US could keep the Iraqis poor. But its not in the USG > >> interest. The USG wants MTV in every Arab home. (Albeit this will > >> piss off the Islamo Fundies, but they're > >> already majorly pissed.) > > > >You're showing your statist/idealist roots. It's not a matter of "the > >US could keep the Iraqis poor." No more so than the U.S. is keeping the > > >South-Central LA negroes poor, or the Calcutta natives poor. > >You grossly misunderstand. The US now owns Iraq. The US can >physically keep Iraqis poor if it wishes ---put them all in internment >camps, feed them a meal at a time. (How is this statism? Its a >statement >of brutal fact, a consequence of who has the biggest guns.) > >The US can also give them all satellite TVs & trust funds if it wishes, >using either your taxes or Iraq's oil sales money. > >Now my claim is that 1. the USG interest is in Americizing Iraq, and >that >2. (having the guns) they will do so, whether the Iraqis want it or not. > >My claim is also that the oil is easier to spend than US tax dollars >in the long run. I have yet to see you refute any of these. I also >fail >to see how this makes me statist. *Recognizing* state actions doesn't >mean I endorse them. > >I suppose I'm also making a claim that the entire population there isn't > >permenantly, chronically South Central LA, i.e., that the US >manipulation >will work to some extent. > > >I suppose the U.S. could order Iraqi National Oil to hire tens of > >thousands of people to polish the pipes, wipe down the derricks, spoon > >up the spilled oil, and other make-work jobs. Still a drop in the > >bucket. > > > >Basically, Iraq went through a standard Turd World birth boom, doubling > > >its population and then doubling it again in just a couple of > >generations. Look at the statistics on how many Iraqis are under 15. > >Yep. But you realize that the high-youth populations of various arab >nations are succeptible to Americanization, and that the USG >knows this, right? And will exploit this for the USG's ends. > > >They dispersed handouts to the breeders, who now number 20 million, > >crowded into several major cities and a dozen smaller cities. > >You are also aware of how, after a population gets Americanized, they >start using birth control? Chicks wanting college, more money per >family >member the fewer there are, no need for agricultural labor. [Alas >world-Americanization is happening too slowly and the population bomb is > >slowly detonating] > > >Modern refineries cannot afford to have people running around with > >wrenches and screwdrivers, tweaking and reading gauges. The plants > >either run with few people or they are doomed. > >Ok. Perhaps I am wrong about the number of pipe-polishers and >folks employed in satellite industries (incl. the Iraqis who repair >Halliburton Mercedez). >Then the USG will create labor-consuming 'reconstruction' projects then. > >Using your or Iraqi resources, it doesn't much matter if its not an >election year. > >I'm stating future history, not what I personally want, Tim. I think >I've stated clearly enough that this the USG acting (without serious >opposition) >in pure USG interest. > > >Finally, for now, a friend of mine for the past 28 years is the son of > >a former Chevron head of research and development (at the Bay Area > >refineries...also lightly staffed). This V.P., Dr. John Scott, told me > >many years ago just how few people it takes to run the crackers and > >distillation towers. > >Ok, then only a few Texans will be over there. Smaller exposure. >Fewer targets. Still, the USG will create native jobs out of USG >interests. > > >It's good for Iraq that they have oil. Having oil is always better than > > >not having oil. But any notion that any expansion of the oil business > >is going to magically employ millions of Iraqis who are not now > >employed is silly. Do the math. > >Every arabian kingdom with oil has little but oil money. That the >monarchs of the region use it for welfare (and thus their own >security) is no different from the USGs plan. > >Only folks it doesn't work on are the Fundies, as the Shah (et al) >found out. > > >> the US imposed 'interim' govt will tax this to > >> fund things (like jobs, or even sinecures) that win favor. Why? > >> Because the govt worries more about Iraqi/Arab backlash more > >> than Halliburton's profits. For a while, anyway. > > > >Silliness. Prices are set by markets. No one is claiming that > >Halliburton will get the bulk of the oil profits. But Halliburton will > >not do its thing (drilling services, extinguishing fires, etc.) except > >at prices they find acceptable. > >Of course, a company is rational, xor extinct. What I mean is, >the new USIRAQ will "own" the oil, much like the Saudi >kings do. They may let others pump it, refine it, move it >(all those parties making a profit), but USIRAQ will >use its take for Americanization. > > >You seem to have some kind of fantasy going on about Iraq's oil economy > > >somehow giving jobs to millions of Iraqis who have no skills, no work > >experience. Optimism has blinded you. Do the math. > >Not optimism, mere modelling of agents and their means >and motivations. > > >> If you liquidate the towelhead kings > >> of the region, you might find a lot of distributable wealth > >> (I'm not a socialist, neither am I an admirer of monarchy.) > >> which the US conquerers would distribute. A great way > >> to curry favor with the populace. Libertarian ideals don't > >> prescribe a way to distribute land-based wealth in the region, > >> though I'd love to be corrected. > >> > > > >"Redistributing the oil wealth" will not do anything except lead to a > >further doubling and tripling of the population. The moral hazard of > >handing out free stuff is itself enough to derail real markets. > >But it won't be *free*, the Iraqis will have to work for >the dinars with George's face on them. >A sinecure counts as work, geopolitically, as long as >the oil is there to pay for it. (And the bricklayers and >fibre-laying crews will be busy with real work at first.) >For psyops-dignity control the jobs can't be *too* fake. >Do not import street-sweeping machines if you need >to employ lots of street-sweepers. > >A doubling takes more than a decade. You can do a lot >of social manipulation in that time. Free birth control at >the oil-paid-for clinics. TV time for agreeable clerics, >jail for disagreeable ones. > >Odd to see you underestimate the capabililties of a >blood & oil crazed US unencumbered by even shreds >of a bill of rights. > >... >...our claim to be left in the unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid > >possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, >often seems less reasonable to others than to us." -- Winston Churchill, > >January 1914 _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

Re: Patriot Act to become permanant?
by Elyn Wollensky 11 Apr '03

11 Apr '03

<snip> > Bush faces a tough decision: roll east, or roll west. > > Since Syria is more decrepit in its armaments, as Iraq was, it will be > the likely target. But first we need to prepare by floating rumors that > Saddam's missing "WMD" (not found by the U.N., not found by the > swarming soldiers) must have been spirited out to Axis of Evil Founding > Member Syria. <snip> > --Tim May Tim nailed it. This just broke on Dow Jones ... ;~/. e Rumsfeld to order Syria invasion plan NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--An intelligence source says U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week ordered the drawing up of contingency plans for a possible invasion of Syria, Newsday reported Thursday. According to the newspaper's Web site, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith is working on a policy paper highlighting how Syria's support of terrorist groups is a threat to the region. But the newspaper also reported that a senior Pentagon officer said he was unaware of any new planning regarding Syria. Rumsfeld said Wednesday that Syria had allowed Iraqi regime figures to enter and had provided Iraq with military technology.

7 8

Re: On the permanence of poverty in the face of property and progress (was Re: "Stay Behind" strategies in Iraq)
by Tyler Durden 11 Apr '03

11 Apr '03

Tim May wrote... >Because a slum of a few million people has essentially nowhere in >the world ever climbed out of poverty, even in well-developed >countries with strong free market systems. At least not in the past >several decades. Reasons left as an exercise.) And RAH replied: >that's the exception that proves the rule. Actually, now that I think >about it, it isn't an exception, it's proof of a new rule. Well, what about Shanghai, Guangzhou, and a bunch of the other coastal Chinese cities? No doubt they're clearly hammering their way out of any "slum" status, and oddly enough with CCP help. (Of course, there aren't any communists left in the Chinese Communist Party.) Well, 'help' is possibly tto strong a word...the Communist Party has basically been backing out of daily life for 20 years or so. One could also argue that Mumbay/Bombay has a shot of de-slumming. At least, this seems to be one Indian city where the effects of an exploding Indian middle class are more easily seen. In general, I agree. The big slum cities seem to remain slums and get bigger. But the existence of sizable cities where de-slumification is happening indicates this is not the inevitable fate of big slum cities. (Or perhaps there's some slum-line beneath which it becomes exponentially more difficult for cities to crawl out of.) Hey wait...I just forgot about the most obvious counter-example, literally underneath me: New York! (Though 1970s slum-NYC had a lot more character than the present day-washed out self-simulacrum its becomming.) -TD >From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: On the permanence of poverty in the face of property and progress >(was Re: "Stay Behind" strategies in Iraq) >Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:06:54 -0400 > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 12:42 PM -0700 4/10/03, amid a veritable ejaculation of gleeful >pro-totalitarian paranoia, oddly prefaced with some economic sense, >Tim May wrote: > >(Because a slum of a few million people has essentially nowhere in > >the world ever climbed out of poverty, even in well-developed > >countries with strong free market systems. At least not in the past > >several decades. Reasons left as an exercise.) > >Okay, I'll bite. There is a counter-example: Sao Paulo, Brazil, but >that's the exception that proves the rule. Actually, now that I think >about it, it isn't an exception, it's proof of a new rule. > >The solution to the above "exercise" is private property, which is >what's happening to Brazil's favellas, in spite of a recently elected >communist government, which, as we discovered with our own Clinton >administration was more show than go. > > >Like entropy, you can't unwind progress, boys and girls, particularly >economic progress, which, like financial to political cryptography, >is the only progress that matters. Knowledge is persistent. More and >more former slums are being reclaimed because of private property. (I >hate the word "capitalism", because it's a Marxist code-word for >"economics".). Think about what happened in Chile, or the the South >Bronx, or what's happening right now in Calcutta and Bombay. Or >Mexico City. > >See Hernando DeSoto, for, um, more exercise. > >Wishfully thinking that we're going to end up with an economic >inversion, with the US the last socialist country on earth, is >probably not going to happen either. > >The world is not a static place. Static models, and static >assumptions, do not apply. The above sample of von Misian >"calculatory" thinking is what topples hierarchical totalitarians >everywhere, and we shouldn't engage in it here, of all places. > >I think that people in Iraq will make more money than their other >Arab brethren and laugh their totalitarians out of the room, just >like we did here in the US to the Weather Underground, or the >Symbianese Liberation Army, or, soon enough, ANSWER. > >It'll happen even faster if the US can keep the UN, and other >"non-government" government organizations, out of Iraq. At least >Tim's right about them. > >Cheers, >RAH > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com > >iQA/AwUBPpb16cPxH8jf3ohaEQIRJACfd/LQtfl59fuvNhtRKzJ5WfPHDQ4AoIJQ >37/YVcOiVnFkG3IlbAC0NGhA >=WZBg >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >-- >----------------- >R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> >The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

1 0

Re: (no subject)
by Ken Brown 11 Apr '03

11 Apr '03

Hnic123ola(a)aol.com wrote: > can you tell me how to make a household bomb Yep. Get a few packs ofcigarettes and a lighter. Turn on the gas hob on the cooker but don't light it. Sit down with a good book and read it until you have smoked all the cigarettes. The world will then have fewer trolls.

2 1

Capture of Saddam Hussein
by Kevin S. Van Horn 11 Apr '03

11 Apr '03

Rumsfeld gives press conference on the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein Doha, Qatar (Routers) In response to questions as to when coalition forces anticipated capturing Saddam Hussein, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had the following reply: (Sung to the tune of "Ticket to Ride", by the Beatles) In spite of thousands of bombs, I'm sorry to say, yeah, Osama first, now Saddam Has gotten away! He's gone to Tikrit to hide, He's gone to Tikrit to hide, He's gone to Tikrit to hide, Hope he stays there. He said living in Baghdad Was gettin' him down, yeah. He could never be free With Frank's troops around. He's gone to Tikrit to hide, He's gone to Tikrit to hide, He's gone to Tikrit to hide, Hope he stays there. Don't know why our drones fly so high, They're always searching, Fruitlessly searching, To see The hideout of this dictator guy, They're always searching, Fruitlessly searching, To see. In spite of thousands of bombs, I'm sorry to say, yeah, Osama first, now Saddam Has gotten away! He's gone to Tikrit to hide, He's gone to Tikrit to hide, He's gone to Tikrit to hide, Hope he stays there.

1 0

Re: "Stay Behind" strategies in Iraq
by Major Variola (ret) 11 Apr '03

11 Apr '03

At 04:03 PM 4/10/03 -0700, Tim May wrote: >On Thursday, April 10, 2003, at 02:41 PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote: >> Nothing the world wants to buy? Forgotten about the oil? > >What part of "no _factories_ producing stuff" was unclear? (Emphasis >added. Oil is not something skilled workers produce...it is something >that a very few produce, leaving most dependent on only what trickles >down.) Nothing was unclear. But I don't understand your emphesis on factories. You can make a living off wheat, you don't have to make bread. Growing wheat, pumping oil don't need skilled labor. Its enough to have nature provide the opportunity. >> It is sufficient for a country to sell raw materials, it does not have >> to process them, or make elaborate things to sell. >> >> The peasants have their labor to sell, and the oil companies will >> buy it. > >You clearly have not visited oil wells or refineries lately. True. Most of >the drilling is done by specialized drilling companies, e.g., the >French, German, British, Dutch, and U.S. drilling companies. They hire >a small number of locals...probably they'll be hiring far fewer for >upcoming projects, due to security measures. Ok, the Iraqis will work in the 7-11s which serve the yankees. Some Iraqis will do better. They will inspire others. They will also be used by psyops to argue for "the american dream" for Iraqis. And although exploited by psyops, I think all humans want to improve their circumstance. And to handle security, you might employ locals, who are more politically expendable. And if they're offed, the USG might even gain points locals, since gen-u-ine Ay-rabs would have been killed. Much more empathetic to the natives than imported Halliburton Texans. Yes, the US could keep the Iraqis poor. But its not in the USG interest. The USG wants MTV in every Arab home. (Albeit this will piss off the Islamo Fundies, but they're already majorly pissed.) >Refineries are built by the Bechtels and Parsons and their European and >Japanese counterparts. Most are nearly fully-automated. Again, a >comparatively tiny number of locals will be hired. Even if true (I'm not fully clued to the oil biz, I'd be surprised if any readers here were) the US imposed 'interim' govt will tax this to fund things (like jobs, or even sinecures) that win favor. Why? Because the govt worries more about Iraqi/Arab backlash more than Halliburton's profits. For a while, anyway. And I am dubious of the "fully automated" claims, frankly, though that is also an empirical matter, perhaps researchable by studying oil ops in the region. If you liquidate the towelhead kings of the region, you might find a lot of distributable wealth (I'm not a socialist, neither am I an admirer of monarchy.) which the US conquerers would distribute. A great way to curry favor with the populace. Libertarian ideals don't prescribe a way to distribute land-based wealth in the region, though I'd love to be corrected. .... Mohamed Atta --An Army of One

6 5