The Washington Times ran a stratfor.com article (as a news article, like the paper would run Reuters or AP) yesterday. I haven't visited their website, but what I read yesterday is quite interesting. -Declan On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 07:50:01PM -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 21:58:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Nathanael Dermyer <nate@zero.neohaven.net> To: free@zero.neohaven.net Subject: [FREE] stratfor
This is a website about strategic forcasting. These people really know their shit.
Read these in order ... these are their forcasts for the war we're about be thrown into
http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109242145.htm (intro - conceptual framework) http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109252150.htm (war plan - afghan theatre) http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109262355.htm (war plan - us theatre) http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109272330.htm (war plan - intercontinental theatre) http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109282120.htm (war plan - follow up)
-Nathanael
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
The Washington Times ran a stratfor.com article (as a news article, like the paper would run Reuters or AP) yesterday. I haven't visited their website, but what I read yesterday is quite interesting.
I have, and I would strongly recommend a visit - especially for those folks who are out to "kick some A-rab Ass!". Lots of Cold Sober analysis.
-Declan
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 07:50:01PM -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 21:58:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Nathanael Dermyer <nate@zero.neohaven.net> To: free@zero.neohaven.net Subject: [FREE] stratfor
This is a website about strategic forcasting. These people really know their shit.
Read these in order ... these are their forcasts for the war we're about be thrown into
http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109242145.htm (intro - conceptual framework) http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109252150.htm (war plan - afghan theatre) http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109262355.htm (war plan - us theatre) http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109272330.htm (war plan - intercontinental theatre) http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109282120.htm (war plan - follow up)
-Nathanael
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
Declan McCullagh wrote:
The Washington Times ran a stratfor.com article (as a news article, like the paper would run Reuters or AP) yesterday. I haven't visited their website, but what I read yesterday is quite interesting.
-Declan
What I find interesting is how we can have a war without a Congressional declaration, which out of practical if not legal necessity requires something at least approximating a foreign power as the enemy. It would be extremely helpful if there were some overt state action or at least a smoking gun to publicly identify such party. Bin Laden and crew are not a foreign power, unless we are stupid enough to turn them into one, a hostile one. Sheer folly when their precise complicity and the extent of their involvement in the attacks has yet to be demostrated outside of their self-promotion and our desire to find the guilty parties. Who, I don't believe, give a shit about the Islam rampant bs. except as expedient, and as much as about selecting the toll collectors for the pipelines to be built through places like Afghanistan to China, the former Soviet Republics, etc. I don't rule out a war. There are grounds for it. That'll be folly, too, though, if we pick the wrong enemy, or support the wrong side again. Not speaking of Bin Laden now. Or cut another deal with a devil who'll bite us in the ass again a few years down the road. If not sooner. If we have to have Americans dying in remote, already blown-up, mine-laden poppy fields etc. as postulated, kindly let's not do it out of crass political expediency. Again. Nothing wrong with revenge for 5000+ dead, either, but don't let's get more killed going after the wrong motherfuckers, or trying to buy the right ones off. There, is that cryptic enough? jbdigriz
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, James B. DiGriz wrote:
What I find interesting is how we can have a war without a Congressional declaration, which out of practical if not legal necessity requires something at least approximating a foreign power as the enemy. It would
Oh, like the "War on Drugs"?
There, is that cryptic enough?
Quite. Thanks.
jbdigriz
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
on Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:11:21PM -0400, James B. DiGriz (jbdigriz@dragonsweb.org) wrote:
Declan McCullagh wrote:
The Washington Times ran a stratfor.com article (as a news article, like the paper would run Reuters or AP) yesterday. I haven't visited their website, but what I read yesterday is quite interesting.
-Declan
What I find interesting is how we can have a war without a Congressional declaration, which out of practical if not legal necessity requires something at least approximating a foreign power as the enemy. It would be extremely helpful if there were some overt state action or at least a smoking gun to publicly identify such party.
As the US President is CinC of the US armed forces, he may deploy these forces as he sees fit. However, Congress holds the purse strings, and the impeachment vote. My understanding is that the War Powers Act, passed in the wake of the SouthEast Asia Disagreement of 1965-1975, limits such deployments to 30 or 90 days. I have to admit being somewhat confused myself over just what distinctions there are between a formal declaration, and a vote of support such as we saw following the 9/11 attacks. I believe a formal declaration would entail far more Presidential support and powers, resources for the military, including likely more sweeping restrictions on civil liberties. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
At 03:30 PM 9/30/01 -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
I have to admit being somewhat confused myself over just what distinctions there are between a formal declaration, and a vote of support such as we saw following the 9/11 attacks. I believe a formal declaration would entail far more Presidential support and powers, resources for the military, including likely more sweeping restrictions on civil liberties.
Yes. Though these days they have Emergency Powers for everything, and chronic, continually extended 'Emergencies'. ...... We have always been at war with Oceania.
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 08:25:08AM -0700, David Honig wrote:
Yes. Though these days they have Emergency Powers for everything, and chronic, continually extended 'Emergencies'.
I've always enjoyed the regular declarations of emergencies required to keep the encryption export control regime active. If an emergency exists for decades, can it still be properly called one? -Declan
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:38:23PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 08:25:08AM -0700, David Honig wrote:
Yes. Though these days they have Emergency Powers for everything, and chronic, continually extended 'Emergencies'.
I've always enjoyed the regular declarations of emergencies required to keep the encryption export control regime active.
If an emergency exists for decades, can it still be properly called one?
I guess so, if it's still "emerging." A difficult birth, perhaps. -- gbn
On Monday, October 1, 2001, at 10:38 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 08:25:08AM -0700, David Honig wrote:
Yes. Though these days they have Emergency Powers for everything, and chronic, continually extended 'Emergencies'.
I've always enjoyed the regular declarations of emergencies required to keep the encryption export control regime active.
If an emergency exists for decades, can it still be properly called one?
Lincoln began the process with his emergency decrees, including his suspension of habeus corpus. (Basically, folks could be jailed without the state producing strong evidence of a crime.) (I expect today's Emergency Orderers are sifting through all such decrees to see what they can crib.) --Tim May
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:11:21PM -0400, James B. DiGriz wrote:
What I find interesting is how we can have a war without a Congressional declaration, which out of practical if not legal necessity requires something at least approximating a foreign power as the enemy. It would be extremely helpful if there were some overt state action or at least a smoking gun to publicly identify such party.
Call me unusually hawkish, but I don't see why that's necessary. Let's say our fleet was attacked at Pearl Harbor 60 years ago -- but by an enemy who did not paint his flag on his aircraft. Congress could, and should, declare war on an unidentified enemy. I admit the situation is not as clear here, since generally only nationstates can raise air armadas and non-nationstate organizations could have trained the Hijacking 19, but perhaps the parallels are nevertheless sufficient. Think of it as an "unidentified co-conspirator" approach. -Declan
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:11:21PM -0400, James B. DiGriz wrote:
What I find interesting is how we can have a war without a Congressional declaration, which out of practical if not legal necessity requires something at least approximating a foreign power as the enemy. It would be extremely helpful if there were some overt state action or at least a smoking gun to publicly identify such party.
Call me unusually hawkish, but I don't see why that's necessary. Let's say our fleet was attacked at Pearl Harbor 60 years ago -- but by an enemy who did not paint his flag on his aircraft. Congress could, and should, declare war on an unidentified enemy.
I admit the situation is not as clear here, since generally only nationstates can raise air armadas and non-nationstate organizations could have trained the Hijacking 19, but perhaps the parallels are nevertheless sufficient. Think of it as an "unidentified co-conspirator" approach.
Better parallels: the Barbary pirates, against which the US sent a fleet in the early 1800s, or the US Army's incursion into Mexico under Gen Pershing in the early 1900s. You can dispatch troops without a nation-state as the target. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Yup, by far the most intelligent analysis I've seen. I do think, however, that the authors seem to have a bit of a pollyannaish attitude re the actions of police, et al and civil liberties in the US, and what that might mean in terms of domestic reaction. Also the idea that there would actually be a "political culture change" on the part of Canada and Mexico, which they see as absolutely necessary for real in-depth homeland defense, seems rather hopeless. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
measl@mfn.org wrote:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 21:58:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Nathanael Dermyer <nate@zero.neohaven.net> Reply-To: free@zero.neohaven.net To: free@zero.neohaven.net Subject: [FREE] stratfor
This is a website about strategic forcasting. These people really know their shit.
Read these in order ... these are their forcasts for the war we're about be thrown into
http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109242145.htm (intro - conceptual framework) http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109252150.htm (war plan - afghan theatre) http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109262355.htm (war plan - us theatre) http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109272330.htm (war plan - intercontinental theatre) http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109282120.htm (war plan - follow up)
-Nathanael
What is this, Henry Kissinger's vanity website or something? It reads like one of his Nixon era State Dept. memos on Vietnam or some shit. Pure felgercarb. No state worthy of the name, benevolent or oppressive, and in it's right mind, declares war with individuals, or abstract concepts, despite the dangerously deluded metaphors. Mr. Bin Laden must be flattered no end if he thinks that the U.S. reallly considers him personally, or even his entire organization, that much of a menace. Doubt he's that stupid, though. That's not necessarily to say that military force is not going to be used, but even if a single judiciously placed CIA bullet could resolve the matter, and not just for the moment, it likely wouldn't have Bin Laden's name on it. Not for maximum effect, anyway. But, loose lips sink ships, etc. Plus, TV, newspapers, websites, etc.need circulation. Bin Laden is good copy. Hottest thing since O.J. Almost as hot as wallowing in the enormity of 5000+ dead, After a century which, as others on the list have pointed out, saw 100's of millions dead from war, famine, disease, state terror, etc. Ruwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc, just in the last 5-6 years or so. Not to discount the horror, but I got over the "It can't happen here" syndrome as a kid in November, 1963. Get a fucking grip, America. And get off your high horse, too. Especially if you want to do anything about it, even if it's just to preserve more than an illusion of invulnerability. Jesus, it's Sunday, isn't it? Off soapbox, jbdigriz
participants (9)
-
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Greg Newby -
Harmon Seaver -
James B. DiGriz -
Jim Dixon -
Karsten M. Self -
measl＠mfn.org -
Tim May