looks like the US grunts are losing it.

[MaiLuk]

McBif,

 

>>The entire U.S. population is "under surveillance"? Even Kim Jong-il hasn't managed that yet. Perhaps you refer to the IRS?<<

 

No not the IRS. Was talking about the data mining that came to light a month ago:

 

USA TODAY

 

NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

 

Updated 5/11/2006 10:38 AM ET

 

By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans ? most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

 

 

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

 

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made ? across town or across the country ? to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

 

Link to full article

 

 

Another and more interesting analysis of what the feds are up to in this regard:

 

Data-Mining

 

Although much about the data-mining program remains unknown to the American people, USA Today reported that the NSA?s goal was to construct the largest database in the world, ultimately storing the records of every phone call made in the United States.

 

The program apparently intends to apply ?social network? models to the calling patterns of Americans supposedly to match them up with patterns of known terrorists.

 

However, given the fact that trained terrorists, such as the 9/11 hijackers, avoided substantive contacts by phone because they knew their calls could be intercepted, it?s unclear even to experts how applying the patterns of the remaining routine calls ? often to a girlfriend or to a realtor ? would offer much help in identifying actual terrorists.

 

More likely, the data-mining program would just overwhelm the FBI with false leads, a process known as ?searching for the needle by adding more hay to the haystack.?

 

While a dubious benefit to real counter-terrorist investigations, the NSA?s data-mining does hold a genuine potential for developing detailed profiles on Americans, especially those who represent threats to Bush?s authority.

 

That potential would be enhanced, too, if phone-calling habits were cross-referenced to other personal information such as financial transactions and Web-site visits, which was the goal of an earlier Bush administration initiative called Total Information Awareness.

 

That ?counter-terrorism project,? devised by the Pentagon?s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, sought to merge vast bodies of electronic data about almost everyone operating within the modern economy.

 

The plan was to map out ?transactional data? collected from every kind of activity ? ?financial, education, travel, medical, veterinary, country entry, place/event entry, transportation, housing, critical resources, government, communications,? according to the DARPA Web site.

 

The program would then cross-reference this data with the ?biometric signatures of humans,? data collected on individuals? faces, fingerprints, gaits and irises.

 

TIA even boasted a logo that looked like some kind of clip art from George Orwell?s 1984. It used a Masonic symbol of an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid peering over the globe, with the slogan, ?scientia est potentia,? Latin for ?knowledge is power.?

 

After the TIA program was revealed in 2002, a public outcry across the political spectrum led to congressional action in 2003 to kill the program.

 

Although the TIA program was believed stopped, the National Journal revealed in February 2006 that the project was ended in name only, kept alive within NSA?s secret budget. The most important components were moved from DARPA to the NSA?s Advanced Research and Development Activity in Fort Meade, Md.

 

One TIA component, called the Information Awareness Prototype System, was renamed ?Basketball? at NSA, but still provided the basic architecture tying together information extraction, analysis and dissemination tools developed under TIA.

 

Another piece of TIA, called Genoa II, was shifted to NSA and re-titled ?Topsail.? It builds information technologies to anticipate and pre-empt terrorist attacks, much like the NSA?s reported data-mining program.

 

Link full article

 

If you went to that article it has embedded links for all the programs it identified above. The National Journal article describing how TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS lives on is here.

 

 

 

>>I think it's more like $150 billion has been spent since 2002, not $200 billion a year. Not peanuts of course but the financial cost of a war isn't necessarily a knock-out reason for not waging it.<<

 

I checked. We're both wrong.

 

 

Projected Iraq War Costs Soar

Total Spending Is Likely to More Than Double, Analysis Finds

 

By Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, April 27, 2006; A16

 

 

 

The cost of the war in Iraq will reach $320 billion after the expected passage next month of an emergency spending bill currently before the Senate, and that total is likely to more than double before the war ends, the Congressional Research Service estimated this week.

 

 

...

 

Once the war spending bill is passed, military and diplomatic costs will have reached $101.8 billion this fiscal year, up from $87.3 billion in 2005, $77.3 billion in 2004 and $51 billion in 2003, the year of the invasion, congressional analysts said. Even if a gradual troop withdrawal begins this year, war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to rise by an additional $371 billion during the phaseout, the report said, citing a Congressional Budget Office study. When factoring in costs of the war in Afghanistan, the $811 billion total for both wars would have far exceeded the inflation-adjusted $549 billion cost of the Vietnam War.

 

 

full article

 

 

 

 

An emergency war spending bill just passed by congress, think it was $76 billion (probably for both afghan and iraq).

 

While checking on that ran across some interesting stats:

 

 

U.S. Military Spending

 

The United States, being the most formidable military power, it is worth looking at their spending.

 

The U.S. military budget request by the Bush Administration for Fiscal Year 2007 is $462.7 billion. (This includes the Defense Department budget, funding for the Department of Energy (which includes nuclear weapons) and ?other? which the source does not define. It does not include other items such as money for the Afghan and Iraq wars?$50 billion for Fiscal Year 2007 and an extra $70 billion for FY 2006, on top of the $50 billion approved by Congress.)

 

For Fiscal Year 2006 it was $441.6 billion

For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion

For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion.

For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.

For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.

For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $305 billion. And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.

This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.

 

These figures typically do not include combat figures, so 2001 onwards, the Afghan war, and 2003 onwards, the Iraq war costs are not in this budget. As of early 2006, Congress had already approved an additional funding total of $300 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

...

 

In Context: U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World

 

Consider the following:

 

The above sources compare the given fiscal year budget request with the latest figures for other countries, which are sometimes two years old. Still using those statistics for other countries, however, a comparison can be made here of the US Fiscal Year 2005 spending against other equivalent data:

 

- The US military spending was almost two-fifths of the total.

 

- The US military spending was almost 7 times larger than the

Chinese budget, the second largest spender.

 

- The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six ?rogue? states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.

 

-It was more than the combined spending of the next 14 nations.

 

-The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)

 

- The six potential ?enemies,? Russia, and China together spent $139 billion, 30% of the U.S. military budget.

 

full text

 

One researcher whose work was published in the NYTimes and the Harvard Magazine looked at ALL the economic costs associated with the war such as "caring for more than 17,000 wounded soldiers (to date)?25 percent of whom have crippling conditions such as brain injuries and multiple amputations and will need lifelong medical attention." Looking at all the data the war will cost $2 Trillion according to the harvard review article

 

 

 

>>I won't argue with your figures for highway deaths<<

 

Good thing because i made them up ha ha. I do know that the annual death rate was 50,000 a few years back so i'm probably in the ball park.

 

>>but counting deaths from old age is a curious thing to factor in - I mean, what the hell?<<

 

The point i'm making is that 3000 is a very small number of peiople when looked at in the context of how many people drop dead or are killed over a period of time. Far more americans are murdered every year (i would guess 50 times more are murdered every year if looked at over a 25 years). Its a drop in the bucket. The liklihood of being killed in a terrorist attack (i've said this many times) is less than the chance of being hit by lightning. So why are americans so scared of terrorists? Its irrational and gives the bin ladens of the world an importance they should not have. And ensures that bin laden's goals are achieved (I'm sure he won't mind if the US bankrupts itself chasing a few terrorists).

 

 

>>But the meat of your argument as I understand it is that 3,000 people killed in a terrorist attack is ho-hum because so many more die of this and that. I respectfully ask: What number would satisfy you?<<

 

Has nothing to do with satisfying me. Has more to do with the government running the ship dangerously close to the rocks and using the excuse that it has to be done just to avoid a few deaths.

 

Personally I like my liberties. The only chance of keeping them is if the gov's powers are reigned in. Instead the gov's powers are expanding exponentially.

[MaiLuk]

Looks like 3 gentleman in Gitmo hanged themselves. I believe our man in charge out there should get an award for making the most obtuse statement in the history of media relations:

 

"They hung themselves with fabricated nooses made out of clothes and bed sheets," Navy Rear Adm. Harry Harris told reporters in a conference call from the U.S. base in southeastern Cuba.

 

"They have no regard for human life," he said. "Neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetric warfare against us."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060611/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_suicides

[AF16]

chuck6660 said:

Many boardmembers are quick to criticize the US military and US foreign policy. However, I have not heard any of these eteemed statesmen bring forth a viable alternative to the present situation.

What is the "correct" response to Islamic terrorism..911, Bali, London, Jordan etc.? Also, what do you with rogue nations developing WMD, such as nKorea, and Iran...remember that in 1991, Iraq had WMD (chem and BIO) and had used them before, where are they 15 years later???? I was really impressed with the progress the EU made in "negotiations" with Iran.

Yes I too, question why the US went into Iraq as they did, however you have to play the cards your dealt, even if you were the dealer. So, what is your correct response to the GWOT, how should it be fought, or not fought?

It is obviously easy to sit in Europe or "Baghdad by the sea" (SF) and second quess the policy makers. But how do you start questioning and mocking the actions of the Soldiers and Marines on the ground? Do you really think that US Soldiers and Marines are sadistic killers, massacering unarmed women and children as policy, I for one believe Haditha was an isolated tragedy. I can personally tell you that US forces take great caution in avoiding civilian casualties, I have seen US Soldiers injured trying to get Iraqi civilians out of the line of fire...I can't say as much toward the terrorist shooting at the civilians.

I will end my little diatribe by stating that the Islamic terroist have an agenda, which is the destuction of the western (non-Islamic) world, do not disillusion yourself about this. So, all you Chamberlains', what should we do?

Since 911 there have been no terror attacks in the US, why?

 

 

We have two things to balance in the war on terror ... well thre really, it's the desire for a peacefull world and the realization that the next big fight to stay compettetive is dwindeling energy reasources.

 

If we want more peace we need to establish alternatives. In the old west the US did it by replacing mobs with a rule of law and men of law to enforce it. Justice was not dealt out by anyone it was a matter of an 'impartial' third party (judge/jury and police/military).

 

It meant that the most powerfull could no longer do as they pleased and it meant that it were less attractive to act in a way that caused problems.

 

Cue, International rule of law that even binds the US, Europe, Russia and China. <- This is a long process and the west should be leading it as we are the ones who claim to belive in the ideals the most.

 

Contries could _ choose _ to join in to this rule of law and by that loose some freedom and gain protection. Quwait could say, hey them there Iraqis seems treatening and we are weak .. can we come under protection from this rule of law thing.. and we could ansery, hell yes but you know you have to sign on to everyting and give a little to.

 

It would also mean that we would have to end some of the geopolitical warfare we are into, both ecconomicallly and military. We whould not support brutal dictators against their people because we earn a few bucks. The small brutal mini dictators that woants to replace the old dictators will be a problem for us later, and with a rule of law we can no long say .. but we gain so much money and power from doing so.

 

Bin Laden wanted to oust his family in SA and the US bases were in his way. SA has oil the US wants and they want power in the ME which bases in SA gives them in the whole region.

 

I can go on but you get the drift.

 

It means we have to fight China and their need for oil in a fair competition on the market. The way the US acts towards some contries it was proving hard as China demanded less and gave more.

 

The third is ofcourse Israel. We need to solve the situation in a diffrent way than ; Israel can do what they want and the US will protec them. The rule of law that Bush manhandled to go into Iraq is pretty clear on Israeli occupation of Palestinian land really.

 

The rule of law have to be impartial and respect both sides equally.

[David_66_UK]

woooooooooo hoooooooooo!!!! outstanding post. from an english fella no less! i'm only surprised that BB has not come on to tell you that posting daisies and other flowers every 10 meters would be far more effective.

 

Also Probably worth a go...........(BTW I was not saying this was a good thing to do!! - just more likely to work than the current approach)

[AF16]

What does work mean? What is the goal?

[Guest]

BelgianBoy said:

DaScarfMan said:

woooooooooo hoooooooooo!!!! outstanding post. from an english fella no less! i'm only surprised that BB has not come on to tell you that posting daisies and other flowers every 10 meters would be far more effective.

No, but I could come on to say that you dont have to proof in every posting of yours that you have a low IQ

 

BB

 

FLAME... FLAME!

[Guest]

AF16 said:

It's pure logic and either descarfman knows it and tires to stirr up something or he is completly clueless in his macho man world.

 

my point on this post is not about being macho... it?s about being practical about what to expect in a war environment? like David66UK says, war is not a game of cricket? some people seem to think there is a referee that stands on the sidelines calling fouls and timeouts during a friggin firefight.

[David_66_UK]

What does work mean? What is the goal?

 

To stop them killing "us".

 

Whilst "we" steal their oil.

[chuck6660]

AF16 said:

 

We have two things to balance in the war on terror ... well thre really, it's the desire for a peacefull world and the realization that the next big fight to stay compettetive is dwindeling energy reasources.

 

If we want more peace we need to establish alternatives. In the old west the US did it by replacing mobs with a rule of law and men of law to enforce it. Justice was not dealt out by anyone it was a matter of an 'impartial' third party (judge/jury and police/military).

 

It meant that the most powerfull could no longer do as they pleased and it meant that it were less attractive to act in a way that caused problems.

 

Cue, International rule of law that even binds the US, Europe, Russia and China. <- This is a long process and the west should be leading it as we are the ones who claim to belive in the ideals the most.

 

Contries could _ choose _ to join in to this rule of law and by that loose some freedom and gain protection. Quwait could say, hey them there Iraqis seems treatening and we are weak .. can we come under protection from this rule of law thing.. and we could ansery, hell yes but you know you have to sign on to everyting and give a little to.

 

It would also mean that we would have to end some of the geopolitical warfare we are into, both ecconomicallly and military. We whould not support brutal dictators against their people because we earn a few bucks. The small brutal mini dictators that woants to replace the old dictators will be a problem for us later, and with a rule of law we can no long say .. but we gain so much money and power from doing so.

 

Bin Laden wanted to oust his family in SA and the US bases were in his way. SA has oil the US wants and they want power in the ME which bases in SA gives them in the whole region.

 

I can go on but you get the drift.

 

It means we have to fight China and their need for oil in a fair competition on the market. The way the US acts towards some contries it was proving hard as China demanded less and gave more.

 

The third is ofcourse Israel. We need to solve the situation in a diffrent way than ; Israel can do what they want and the US will protec them. The rule of law that Bush manhandled to go into Iraq is pretty clear on Israeli occupation of Palestinian land really.

 

The rule of law have to be impartial and respect both sides equally.

 

AF16

There is a lot of merit to your your first two points.

As for Israel and the Palestinian issue, I'm not sure what the best answer is. I am not an expert on the Palestinian's, but I have several questions: Was there ever a nation of Palenstine? If so, was Palestine a nation when Israel was created? And lastly, if they are so concerned about the blight of the Palestinian people, has Syria, Jordan, Egypt or any other Arab nation offered to provide a homeland to the Palestinian people.

These are several points I often hear during discussions of this issue, the answers are various depending on which side of the issue someone stands.

IMO the Bush administration is best served by not tying the Israeli - Palestinian issue to Iraq and the GWOT.

::

[bust]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181

The UN Partition Plan for Palestine

 

In the years immediately following WWII, the British position in Palestine was made increasingly difficult. The ban on Jewish immigration by the British, despite rising persecution in Europe, led to the Biltmore declaration of 1942, in which Zionist Leader David Ben Gurion made explicit the Zionist goal of an independent state in Palestine, in order to ensure the right of free immigration.

However, after the war all the Jewish military groups became active in fighting the British. The violence between Arabs and Jews also escalated. The British, who were in any event in the process of parting from an empire they could no longer afford, notified the United Nations that they would be departing Palestine no later than August 1948. After considerable debate, the United Nations General Assembly decided on partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem to be an internationalized city.