This chat board is for comments on models, mag features, events, and all model-related stuff

Sunday, October 10, 2004

Dr. Strangelove is back

The NYTimes reports on the re-release of "Dr Strangelove", Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film "about nuclear-war plans run amok".
The article mentions that Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in the 70s, and who was a RAND analyst and later a consultant at the Defense Department, took off work one afternoon in 1964 with a mid-level official to see the film - "...Mr. Ellsberg recently recalled that as they left the theater, he turned to his colleague and said, 'That was a documentary!'..." (full post here)

7 Comments:

At 10/10/2004 5:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the 9-11 terrorists had managed to use a nuclear device instead of an airplane - say they waited another two years to "wake us up" - 100,000 innocent Americans could have been killed instead of 3,000. We can no longer let countries which support terrorism or harbor terrorists operate with impunity. That's why Saddam is out of power, that's why Libya has given up their WMD programs, that's why 75% of Al-Qaeda are now dead or captured, and that's why suicide bombings in Israel are way down.

We must have a military presence in the mideast. We may be making a few more Muslims mad at us, but their anger doesn't make nuclear weapons which are the only real threat to our economy and our safety.

Clinton sold satellite technology to China over the objections of the Department of Defense because it could be used in intercontinental ballistic missiles. The democrats gave 2 plutonium reactors to N. Korea, the fuel rods of which are now being used to make nuclear weapons. The DNC was fined $700,000 for accepting campaign contributions from Red China (some of which went to John Kerry - see Judicialwatch.org, a completely non-partisan organization). Do you trust Kerry to stop this insanity? Bush is trying. He's the one that cut off the free ride to N. Korea.

 
At 10/10/2004 5:54 PM, Blogger FV said...

Last time I checked, Bin Laden's friends tried to kill Kaddafi in Libya - under contract from British intelligence.
Libya used terrorist methods in the past, but there was never any Al Quaida connection.


And if I noticed right, the NY Times was saying that there is still no connection found between Saddam and Bin Laden's organization - which is obvious to anyone who knows the simple fact that Saddam headed a secular "westernised" regime which executed Moslem fanatics by the hundrends, while Bin Laden was on the side of the fanatics.

As for the terrorists in Afganistan, didn't the CIA and the Saudis trained and financed them in the 80s, to get rid of the Soviets?


"...John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American “black Muslims� were taught “sabotage skills�.

The November 1, 1998, British Independent reported that one of those charged with the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Ali Mohammed, had trained “bin Laden's operatives� in 1989.

These “operatives� were recruited at the al Kifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn, New York, given paramilitary training in the New York area and then sent to Afghanistan with US assistance to join Hekmatyar's forces. Mohammed was a member of the US army's elite Green Berets.

The program, reported the Independent, was part of a Washington-approved plan called “Operation Cyclone�.

In Pakistan, recruits, money and equipment were distributed to the mujaheddin factions by an organisation known as Maktab al Khidamar (Office of Services — MAK).

MAK was a front for Pakistan's CIA, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The ISI was the first recipient of the vast bulk of CIA and Saudi Arabian covert assistance for the Afghan contras. Bin Laden was one of three people who ran MAK. In 1989, he took overall charge of MAK.

Milt Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, “Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did ... [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did.�

Bin Laden only became a “terrorist� in US eyes when he fell out with the Saudi royal family over its decision to allow more than 540,000 US troops to be stationed on Saudi soil following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

....


finally - Zbigniew Brzezinski said:

“What was more important in the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?�

so, have fun with the "stirred up Muslims" - it cost 1200 dead and over 15,000 invalid Americans so far in fighting, but as usual, the full effect of what's going on will only be revealed after a few years...

 
At 10/11/2004 12:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ahmed Shakir, a Lt. Col in Saddam's fedyeen attended the chief 9-11 meetings in Jan 2000 in Kuala Lampur where the plot was finalized.

You can name all the names you want, but this isn't a war against al-Qaeda as John Kerry would love to think. This is a war against nuclear terrorism, and going after one group only would be a deadly mistake. You have to go after the countries that harbor these guys. Without a base of operations, they will find hatching a nuclear plot infinitely more difficult.

North Korea originally subrograted its nuclear treaty in 1992. As Kerry seems to want to do, Clinton basically ignored the threat and was more than happy to keep the American people in the dark. He even gave them two plutonium reactors. THis head in the sand mentality is what got us into this fix to begin with. With the takeover of Iraq, Syria and Iran now understand that they can no longer support terrorism with impunity as Saddam did for ten plus years. This was a statement that had to be made. We cannot wait while these countries buy off UN officials and develop WMD. Like Clinton, Kerry will wait and pray nothing goes wrong. He will defer to the UN until a nuclear device finally sends this country and the world economy into an economic spiral it could take a decade to pull out of. Either we deal with nuclear terrorism NOW, or our kids deal with it ten, twenty years from now when terrorists have access to dozens of nuclear weapons. Now is the time to get rid of fundamentalist fanaticism. Clinton's eight years of procrastination did absolutely nothing for this country although it seems to have enriched he and his ilk considerably.

 
At 10/14/2004 12:19 PM, Blogger FV said...

I just read that the threat of nuclear terror is now much greater, coz large stocks of Iraqi spent nuclear fuel (registerd with the International Atomic Commision and under constant watch before the Iraq war) was stolen while the US invasion was underway

Guess who bought the stuff !!!

Thanks to the US pre-emptive war strategy, we are all now in much greater danger of becoming a nuclear terror target than before the war

 
At 10/14/2004 3:00 PM, Blogger FV said...

"...The invasion of Iraq was supposed to be about stopping weapons of mass destruction. It was supposed to be about stopping nuclear materials from getting out from under UN control,"
Greenpeace said yesterday.
"The only winners in this story are those who are looking to capitalise on security failures by scoring loose nukes."

Greenpeace raised the alarm about nuclear chaos in Iraq last year after visiting the Tuwaitha complex.

 
At 10/15/2004 2:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought Saddam didn't have any WMD? You can't have it both ways. Spent fuel isn't going to do anyone any good unless they have a way to enrich it. That takes sophisticated facilities. And the only way that is going to happen is if Iran or Syria are allowed to go on protecting terrorists. Under Bush, I don't think that will happen.

Except in the case of North Korea, where the Clinton administration actually gave them ten or twenty pounds of Plutonium. At least Bush turned off the spigot to these maniacs. Now he's trying to clean up the mess left by eight years of a do-nothing president.

Kerry is so anti-war and so pro UN that we will be back where we started, only this time it will be Iran bribing UN officials until they have the bomb. Countries cannot be allowed to harbor terrorists and Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Men like Kerry and Clinton are smooth talkers. They can justify anything they do or fail to do because they have the press behind them. Meanwhile, any lack of action could plunge us into a future where fundamentalist extremist Muslims in dictatorial regimes produce five, ten, one hundred and eventually ten thousand nuclear weapons. Once they get one, it will be very difficult to reverse the trend. They are quite happy to live in tents and sit on the floor. Are you? Because if they go unchecked, we can all plan on living in hovels and breathing air with most of the plutonium filtered out. Maybe not next year, maybe thirty years from now - or maybe just five.

One last thought. Ask yourself why both trial lawyers and insurance companies support Kerry (and if you think it's because of the war, you're wrong). Insurance companies are quite happy to pay the big settlements, because they just raise their rates and thru their friends, lawyers and big governments, force us to pay them. That is the freedomless nightmare that the Democratic Party is bringing. Not John Ashcroft putting terrorist sympathizers behind bars.

 
At 10/16/2004 2:05 AM, Blogger FV said...

LONDON - America's popularity around the world has taken a beating in recent years, according to a set of coordinated polls conducted in 10 different countries..The polls found that to an overwhelming degree, respondents in most of the countries have a more negative view of the United States now than a few years ago...On average, 57 percent said they had a worse opinion of the United States than two to three years ago, compared to 20 percent who said they had a higher opinion now...Seventy-four percent of Japanese, 70 percent of French, 67 percent of South Koreans, 64 percent of Canadians and 60 percent of Spaniards said they had a lower opinion of America now than a few years ago. Only in Israel — whose prime minister, Ariel Sharon (news - web sites), has won strong backing from Bush — did more people say their view of the United States had improved than worsened, by a margin of 40 percent to 26 percent...
On Iraq, 68 percent of people — majorities in seven out of eight countries — said the U.S. was wrong to invade, while 25 percent thought war was the right decision.

In an Associated Press poll this fall, a majority surveyed in eight countries said they believed the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism. Just over half of respondents in the United States and two-thirds or more of respondents in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico and Spain said they believed Iraq has increased the terrorist threat, according to the AP-Ipsos polls.


Just in...
WASHINGTON - The Army is investigating up to 19 members of a supply platoon in Iraq (news - web sites) who refused to go on a convoy mission, the military said Friday. Relatives of the soldiers said the troops considered the mission too dangerous, in part because their vehicles were in such poor shape... On Wednesday, 19 members of the platoon did not show up for a scheduled 7 a.m. meeting in Tallil, in southeastern Iraq, to prepare for the fuel convoy's departure a few hours later, the military statement said...The Clarion-Ledger, citing interviews with relatives of some of the soldiers, said platoon members refused to go on Wednesday's mission because their vehicles were in poor condition and they had no capable armed escort. They were going to Taji, which is north of Baghdad.

A whole unit refusing to go on a mission in a war zone would be a significant breach of military discipline. The military statement called the incident "isolated" and called the 343rd an experienced unit that performed honorable service in nine months in Iraq.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home