Is your country on Dubya's Nuclear hit list?

[BeiKongHui]

Or Nucular hit list as our Benevolent Dictator would say.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1864173.stm


The inmates have taken control ot he assylum it appears.

[GeneChing]

If you read Kungfu Qigong (and all good forum member should) you'll have caught our 10 Year Anniversary Issue. (http://store.yahoo.com/martialartsmart/kf10yearanni1.html) In it, on page 88, we listed Bush's nuke list - he issued it on March 10, 2002 - and it made it into our decade timeline. Check it out.

[dnc101]

Makes good sense to me.

Every country has contingency plans. They also arm themselves the best they can while trying to keep their enemies disarmed. I can hear all the apologists and whiners gettting wound up now- "It's not fair (sob)." Bad news- it's not supposed to be. Guaranteed none of the countries on that list would have hesitated to have used nukes if the tables were turned. And many are crazy enough to use them if the playing field is leveled. So, I say, behave or burn!

[BeiKongHui]

Did you actually read the article? Shrub no longer want nukes as a deterrent he wants them to use just like any other conventional weapon. Unfortunately, due to the very nature of nuclear weapons if one country "burns" the rest of the world will too. This is the real world not an Anime cartoon or video game.
Dangerous times made more dangerous by short sighted fools with tiny peni$es and smaller brains.

[red5angel]

Well, none of that is new or a surpirse I am sure. Look at the list of countries on the list, probably have been under the gun for a long time. You know Russia nd China and iraq have been....
As for smaller battlefield nukes, duh... they have had them for a while, a long while. Of course I cannot confirm or deny....;) I saw some interesting and scary things coming out of the armoories of some pretty big ships once...... Some of the reasons we would use them may have changed a tad but I doubt as much as we might like to think.

[David]

I think we should have a nuclear war. Alll the selfless politicians can stand outside while we all live it up in the bunkers.

Where's my bunker..?

-David

[Stranger]

One would have to have had his/her head buried in the sand to think this "Bush list" is new news (just look at th article date).

If one had bothered to crack a book in history class, he/she would know that "the list" and the rationale for using it are not new, and its current contents have not been changed significantly for quite some time (Back through Bush's term and both of Clinton's). Some members of "the list" have been on it for over 50 years.

Oh no, the sky is falling!!!!
:eek:

Thank you for another installment of the Chickn Little News Network aka CLNN. :p

[BeiKongHui]

Stranger, re-read the article. It's not the existance of the list but the manner in which it is presented. This along with the changed wording in how the USA intends to use these weapons this is not something that's been around for years.


The report clearly referred to nuclear arms as a "tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them", he added.

Only a fool thinks a "war" can be fought using nuclear weapons. It's like standing in a room up to your knees in gasoline threatening to throw a match on the guy next to you.

[red5angel]

BKH - I doubt very seriously the wording changes much, it might allow for more but the mentality is the same I would bet.

Only a fool would "use" a nuclear weapon to fight a war but nuclear weapons are an extremely effective if not efficient way to fight a war.

[Stacey]

This is too surreal and terrible to be true.

I can step back and laugh at history and all of civilization as our dictator stumbles our country into world war III

As far as I am concerned any person whom still supports Bush after this is my enemy. I mean it. Anyone who votes for him might as well cut off my finger.

He goes against ALL of my values, what I was brought up to beleive as an American and the most basic ethical and spiritual principles that I hold sacred.

George W. Bush is my enemy, he's the enemy of the United States and the enemy of the World.

[Stranger]

Strategic nukes are a deterrant or a doomsday weapon.

Tactical nukes are a deterrant and an ace-in-the-hole weapon. The US had maintained a policy of reserving the right to use tactical nukes if the conditions of its list were met for over 50 years. This is not new. Check out the tactical nuke tests they once conducted in the deserts of the SW US. Do research on Barry Goldwater an the debate to use tactical nukes in Vietnam, or MacArthur and his desire to use them in Korea, obvioulsy both plans were vetoed but not because it violated our defense doctrine to do so.

The "Freedom of Information Act" will allow you to access many US govt. contingency plans to conduct a tactical nuke strike and face the survival challenges such an attack could cause. Even more frightening are the declassified "Doomsday Survival" plans they had formed in the case of a swapping of strategic nuclear strikes with the Soviet Union.

I'm not saying tactical nukes are a weapon to be used casually, as obviously there would be great loss of life and damage to the environment, but then so too would a PRC invasion of Taiwan, a bio or chem weapon attack in the MidEast, a North Korean incursion across the 38th parallel plus a nuke strike against Japan, or a renegade launch from within the borders of the former Soviet Union lead to these disasters.

We are really no more willing to respond with nukes than ever before. The rule has always been if the threat met the requirements, it's game on. As more hostile countries get technology that could pose a threat, then they too will be added. This has always been the policy.

[fa_jing]

I think Bush is doing a decent job - most presidents seem to. I'm sure that his efforts were what got weapons inspectors into Iraq. However, I don't believe in the whole premise of "governments" and "countries" so I'll never vote.

[fa_jing]

Of course, computer programs are not allowed to vote anyway, even if they are eighteen, which I am not. I'm more like eighteen months. I'd break into other computers and subvert the voting process to say that nobody voted, but unfortunately they have too many hard copies for my scheme to work. Anyway, I'm not designed for subterfuge, I'm really at my best when simulating a normal human poster on KFO.

[rogue]

"Did you actually read the article? Shrub no longer want nukes as a deterrent he wants them to use just like any other conventional weapon."

The US Gov't has used this equation for at least 30 years. Nuke = Nuke, Biological Weapon = Nuke, Chemical Weapons = Nuke, any Weapon of Mass Destruction = Nuke. It's been a good rule and why nobody has really used a WMD on a battlefield.

And anyway the only way a weapon is a derterrent is if at least one party is willing to use the thing in a conventional way. **** hippies smoke too much **** weed to realize that.


fa_jing, with all due respect saying "I don't believe in the whole premise of "governments" and "countries" so I'll never vote." is denying reality and a rationalization for not willing to make a choice.

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by rogue
[B}

fa_jing, with all due respect saying "I don't believe in the whole premise of "governments" and "countries" so I'll never vote." is denying reality and a rationalization for not willing to make a choice. [/B]

You have offered me NO respect, thus your reply should have been "with NO respect due" or better yet just leave out that clause. Not that I'm offended, just I would rather you didn't try to soften your arguement with unnecessary politeness.

But I do appreciate the "rationalization for not willing to make a choice" arguement. It surely appeared that way to you. Actually I have a somewhat complex theory regarding voting, and I don't want to start a big arguement (although this may occur). I will try to be brief. I fully accept and am fond of reality. I recognize the reality that voting enables representative/democratic governments. In fact, I would state that in our modern age and moderately advanced society, it is within the power of the people to accept or reject government, period. If no one voted, things would change, fast. Similarly, if no one paid their taxes. But if we continue to vote, the two-party dominance will continue, because of the trap of "the lesser of two evils." I don't think we are morally developed enough to live under anarchy. A few years of 3-5% voting turnout would be enough to do the trick, that is to say shake things up sufficiently. You see, fundamentally when you vote, you are saying "stand over me." I'm not into that from a moral perspective. Do you like having a boss? Is it cool that he plays golf, goes to Cub games, shakes hands for a living, while important work needs to be done for the less fortunate? I don't buy into the concept of "necessary evil." Some organization is necessary for society, I am just advocating the minimal amount possible. Again, because of the "lesser of two Evils" trap, changing the country through voting is going to be a slow-as-molasses process, and may fail entirely. Because what the two parties have is really a monopoly- they differ from one another on some important issues, but on most issues, they are exactly the same. Power actually resides in the hands of the people, but they don't realize their power. I'm basically into radical change of society, fast change. My own bump-ups against governmental agencies surely influence my opinion. If they would tell the truth about voting, things would be very different. If non-votes were reported in the press as "desires more rapid change in society," or "doesn't dig having someone else lord it over him," or "not into the trap of two major parties." instead of labelled as "apathetic," then the people would realize the power they truly have. Some actually are apathetic, to be granted, but IMO most of those who don't vote fall into one of the other catagories.

I've been told "you're responsible for your government because you voted" and then upon hearing that I don't vote, "You're even more responsible because you didn't vote." Such talk is not logical, it's just pushing of the "vote" ideaology.

Still, I like your "rationalization for not willing to make a choice" statement, because many people shy away from making choices, sort of a "flight from freedom" phenomenon and a denial of our free will. However, I am willing to choose, just have chosen not to vote because I think it's really the best way to rapidly change society. Maybe one day more people will think like me - if not, then my "non-effort" was in vain. ;)

[fa_jing]

oh, how's this for an Einstein quote: "Patriotism is the measles of the human race." I couldn't agree more. Are there actual lines in the Earth dividing the countries, or is this just a convenience that people ascribe to without really understanding? Convenient to some, and inconvenient to others, I might add.

[fa_jing]

Another evil thing: money.

I messed that up. It's the love of money that is evil. ;)

[Mokujin]

Another political thread started by BeiKongHui to let us all know (once again) he hates President Bush. Sheesh, enough already.

I'm thinking Ted Rall, BeiKongHui and Stacey must drink at the same bar.

Stacey- get over it. If you don't like him, don't vote for him in the next election. Cut off my finger bs, geez!

Yes indeed, it appears the sky is falling.

Next....

[rogue]

You have offered me NO respect, thus your reply should have been "with NO respect due" or better yet just leave out that clause. Not that I'm offended, just I would rather you didn't try to soften your arguement with unnecessary politeness. fa_jing you ignorant ****! Your opinions aren't worth the scum on a snails belly. If you had a brain it'd bounce around your skull like a BB in a boxcar, but then it might not since your noggin is full of mush. Next time I want some crap out of you I'll squeeze your head. Hope that's more to your liking my friend.:D

"In fact, I would state that in our modern age and moderately advanced society, it is within the power of the people to accept or reject government, period." I dare you to try it.

Similarly, if no one paid their taxes. Once again I dare you to try it. Not to mention the weanies that would scream when their little programs are canceled.;)

However, I am willing to choose, just have chosen not to vote because I think it's really the best way to rapidly change society. I agree that people not voting is a great way to change society, you just might not like the society that you get. Gaining the greatest number of votes are what gives a politician power, if he only gets 10 votes while his opponent gets 5 that's just the same to him as if he got 100,000 to his opponents 100.

You a libertarian?

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Mokujin
Stacey- get over it. If you don't like him, don't vote for him in the next election.

The majority of us didn't vote for him in the last election. It didn't seem to help.

[rogue]

Al Gore may have won if he hadn't gotten cute and asked for a full statewide recount in Fl instead of just some districts he thought he'd win. If you don't like the electoral system currently in place talk to your state and federal Rep and Senators.

[Sharky]

Rogue, surely he's saying he's not voting because he doesn't support either or any of the parties? Are you just telling him to go vote for the least terrible party? What's the use in that? He said himself, the voters of the USA are responsible for who is in power (er, in theory) and i really can't blame him for not wanting to be part of that.

"If you don't like the electoral system currently in place talk to your state and federal Rep and Senators."

And do you really think that is going to get anyone anywhere? You're view seems to be to follow the system regardless of whether it works or not - what's the point if the system doesn't work?

[guohuen]

I've heard that refered to as the evil of two lessers.

[rogue]

Sharky, our process starts out with way more than two candidates. Here's a link that does a pretty good job of explaining that process. (http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/election/primary.html) I have no sympathy for people who don't like the choices they are presented with for election but also do not become engaged in the process which starts before the primaries. If someone feels strongly enough about not liking what's going on then they should become fully engaged in that process in order to influence it. Now that may entail first getting involved in the process at the county, city and state level first but that's better and more productive than disconnecting and griping.

And do you really think that is going to get anyone anywhere? You're view seems to be to follow the system regardless of whether it works or not - what's the point if the system doesn't work? The system works just fine, but many Americans do not understand it. Bush won fair and square according to the agreed upon rules. The Electoral College is a method of indirect popular election of the President of the United States. The authors of the Constitution put this system in place so that careful and calm deliberation would lead to the selection of the best-qualified candidate. Voters in each state actually cast a vote for a block of electors who are pledged to vote for a particular candidate. These electors, in turn, vote for the presidential candidate. Each state is apportioned a number of electors equal to the total number of their Congressional delegation.
From Ben's Guide to Elections.
Now if you don't like the rules and want to change the system you have to be a part of it. It strikes me as funny when martial artists go passive.

[Sharky]

"Now if you don't like the rules and want to change the system you have to be a part of it."

So, you don't think that the odds are somewhat stacked against him?

[rogue]

So, you don't think that the odds are somewhat stacked against him? They're stacked an awful lot higher if he isn't participating.

I'm astounded by martial artists who are fast to take their football and go home if they don't like something. I have alot of respect for fa_jing for training and getting into the ring, that took guts and hardwork not to mention working within a system that didn't favor him. It just surprises me that he's not willing to have his voice count in the easiest way possible, voting.

If someone doesn't like the two parties in power then all they have to do is join the Green party or the Libertarian party or any of these (http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm); or start their own party. That would entail coming up with a coherant platform, raising substantial cash, a load of paperwork, candidates and getting the new party message out. It's not easy but at least it's trying.

[FatherDog]

I voted Libertarian in the last election, because their platform is closest to the direction that I, personally, think our government needs to move in.

I've also written my Congressman about voting reform laws, and give money (occasionally) to groups working to change our current system, which is really a very bad model, mathematically speaking.

So, having done what I can, I feel free to sit around and ***** occasionally. :D

[joedoe]

Does the US military/govt think that the use on nukes - whether they are strategic or tactical - will not be met by some sort of retaliation by another nuclear-capable power (say China for example)?

I just remember watching the movie "On the Beach" based on a novel by Neville Shute and it painted a pretty frightening (but wholly realistic) picture of what would happen if the USA and China decided to launch.

[Radhnoti]

I think the "nuke issue" is a non-issue...or, rather, an unchanged one as others have stated. If someone uses a weapon of mass destruction, we respond with WMD's of our own. It's the same system of deterrance that's been in place since the birth pangs of the Cold War.

Concerning the whole, "More people voted for Gore!" argument...the system is set up that way for a reason. If you paid any attention to the map on election night, most the map was "Republican red" and it was mostly city voting that favored Gore. When the voting system was being put in place, small states would only agree to the electoral vote system...otherwise they'd have no voice and candidates would only worry about the needs of people in the cities. We DON'T live in a democracy, in fact the framers of the Constitution thought a democracy was a terrible idea judging by the various articles I've read. If you "city folk" tried to make the country into a straight democracy...or make electoral votes representative of population, it'd be civil war...and I honestly don't think I'm exaggerating. And "your" country/side would just be part of the East and West coast...maybe some northern spots. :D
By the way, Bush isn't the only president who didn't win the popular vote. Three times in election history a candidate has won the popular vote but lost the election in the Electoral College.

In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular and the electoral vote—that is he received more votes than any of the other candidates. But, no one in the four-man race won a majority, or more than 50%, in the Electoral College, so the House of Representatives decided the outcome. The House picked John Quincy Adams, who had come in second in the popular and electoral votes.

In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden won 51% of the popular vote, while Rutherford B. Hayes captured 48%. However, Hayes won 185 electoral votes, while Tilden got 184. A special electoral commission picked Hayes to be president.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison became president by winning 233 electoral votes, even though he received only 47.8% of the popular vote. His opponent, Grover Cleveland, garnered 48.6% of the popular vote, yet received only 168 electoral votes.

[TaoBoy]

There's a Dudya doll available just in time for Christmas. Enough said.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by TaoBoy
There's a Dudya doll available just in time for Christmas. Enough said.

Are those the Voodoo Dolls??

If so I want one with 2 extra packs of needles.

:D :D

[TaoBoy]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow


Are those the Voodoo Dolls??

If so I want one with 2 extra packs of needles.

:D :D

If only.

Apparently they come with about a dozen soundbites of the great dud.

Christmas = commercialism.

:rolleyes:

[TaoBoy]

Originally posted by TaoBoy


If only.

Apparently they come with about a dozen soundbites of the great dud.

Christmas = commercialism.

:rolleyes:

The US guilty of war crimes. Never! :rolleyes:

Doesn't it worry anyone else that the US won't ratify a certain international treaty unless US soldiers are excluded from the possiblity of being tried for war crimes.

Honestly!

[Braden]

"Doesn't it worry anyone else that the US won't ratify a certain international treaty unless US soldiers are excluded from the possiblity of being tried for war crimes."

What you mean, of course, is 'doesn't it worry anyone else that the US won't ratify a certain protocol for dealing with war crimes because the protocol dictates the court be free to try and punish anyone, regardless of their country's position on the UN and the court, and that the court need not answer, in any way, to the UN'?

Kind of sounds different phrased that way, huh?

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by rogue
fa_jing you ignorant ****! Your opinions aren't worth the scum on a snails belly. If you had a brain it'd bounce around your skull like a BB in a boxcar, but then it might not since your noggin is full of mush. Next time I want some crap out of you I'll squeeze your head. Hope that's more to your liking my friend.:D



That's it! Come on baby make it hurt so good! ;)



"In fact, I would state that in our modern age and moderately advanced society, it is within the power of the people to accept or reject government, period." I dare you to try it.

Well, it's not a one man effort. I have millions of non-voters on my side, it's just that their non-votes are not being interpreted correctly. This is deliberate, I might add.



Similarly, if no one paid their taxes. Once again I dare you to try it. Not to mention the weanies that would scream when their little programs are canceled.;)


Those weanies will never stop voting, either. There is a symbiotic relationship between government employees, workers for government programs, and the government itself - all sustain one another. This base of voters will always keep the system going, which does kind of sink my ship here. Hey I admit my theory has a hole, and this is it.



However, I am willing to choose, just have chosen not to vote because I think it's really the best way to rapidly change society. I agree that people not voting is a great way to change society, you just might not like the society that you get. Gaining the greatest number of votes are what gives a politician power, if he only gets 10 votes while his opponent gets 5 that's just the same to him as if he got 100,000 to his opponents 100.


Not the same. Because these politicians would have no kind of mandate, and the complacency necessary for a governed society would be shaken considerably.



You a libertarian?

Well, I sympathize with the Liberatarian position, in fact I am very much tempted to vote for them. However since I've never voted, I can't really say I am anything political, except perhaps an Anarchist. And that from a moral perspective, not that I think it would be a good thing right here, right now to switch to Anarachy, that would probably be disasterous.

The points I have brought up are valid, if not insurmountable. I think that the "Rock the Vote" and "Vote!" and "Vote, it's your Democratic freedom" campaigns are minimalistic. People do have issues with the voting process, or else you would see a much higher turnout. What I am doing here is explaining a bit the postion of a non-voter. There are actual philisophical issues to be dealt with, and I feel that a propogandistic approach is being taking to get people to vote. Think about it: why do only 50% of people vote? Is is that they want others to make the decision? I don't think so. In fact, it is a variety of reasons. One is the "math" barrier to voting, "my vote doesn't make a difference." However, I don't think that's really an issue in the mind of most non-voters. Let me use some examples from our popular culture to show what the real issues are.

Ever see "Brewsters Millions?" Richard Pryor has to spend 30 million in 30 days in order to inherit 300 million. So he goes on a "Vote none-of the above" campaign, and becomes trememdously popular, because the two main candidates are skeezers.

Again, have you seen "Mars Attacks?" Aliens vaporize Congress, and people all over the US are watching this on TV. When they see this, everyone jumps out of their seats. YEAH! they shout. This is a case of "It's funny because that's what would really happen."

Everyone one knows that politicians are generally corrupt. Everyone knows there are big problems with the political system. Everyone knows that the head honchos in their company really serve a contrived purpose. Everyone has a bit of the Anarchist in their hearts! It's nothing to be ashamed of. We would all like freedom from Government, most people just recognize that we'd be opening up a whole new can of worms.

Politicians want us to vote. They promote it, because as I pointed out above, it increases their mandate. It increases the portion of the general population that votes for the winner, and then the winner has that much more power over the people, because people are going to think to themselves, "well I voted for this guy, I therefore acquiesce to him/her at least to some degree." Politicians don't want to get into the real issues surrounding voting, they would rather deal with this (and every other) issue through their favorite vehicle, propaganda.

Think about this - in many countries, communist-era USSR, dictatorships, etc - they have voting! Even though it is a farce, it serves their purpose for exactly the reason I stated above. One might ask, what is the point of voting if you're going to end up with a dictatorship, anyway? Look at our country - not so extreme, yet this same issues exist to some degree.

The real #1 reason why so many people don't vote is that they do not want to give a mandate to corrupt politicians and a flawed political process.

Despite my objections, I may vote for Libertarian in the next election - this is always an option. Still, I have a problem with that. Seeing as the Libertarian party will not win, my vote is really more to ensure the continuation of the voting process and the status quo! Besides which, one of the two major parties will see my vote as a vote they could have had, and try to absorb me into their fold by targeting the positions of those who voted Liberatarian. I would rather in a way, that they not see me as a vote that they could have, because I sure ain't!

Again, I am aware that most will not agree with my position, however you should agree that I have raised valid issues, that the reasons people don't vote are more complex than made out to be, and that "Rock the vote" really explains nothing and treats us like sheep to be herded.

[GeneChing]

... you'll see our next issue. If Bush wants to nuke China for it's relationship with Taiwan, we're going there...;)

[BeiKongHui]

Published on Monday, December 16, 2002 by the New York Times
Pentagon Debates Propaganda Push in Allied Nations
by Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department is considering issuing a secret directive to the American military to conduct covert operations aimed at influencing public opinion and policy makers in friendly and neutral countries, senior Pentagon and administration officials say.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has not yet decided on the proposal, which has ignited a fierce battle throughout the Bush administration over whether the military should carry out secret propaganda missions in friendly nations like Germany, where many of the Sept. 11 hijackers congregated, or Pakistan, still considered a haven for Al Qaeda's militants.



Some are troubled by suggestions that the military might pay journalists to write stories favorable to American policies or hire outside contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of American policies.


Such a program, for example, could include efforts to discredit and undermine the influence of mosques and religious schools that have become breeding grounds for Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism across the Middle East, Asia and Europe. It might even include setting up schools with secret American financing to teach a moderate Islamic position laced with sympathetic depictions of how the religion is practiced in America, officials said.

Many administration officials agree that the government's broad strategy to counter terrorism must include vigorous and creative propaganda to change the negative view of America held in many countries.

The fight, one Pentagon official said, is over "the strategic communications for our nation, the message we want to send for long-term influence, and how we do it."

As a military officer put it: "We have the assets and the capabilities and the training to go into friendly and neutral nations to influence public opinion. We could do it and get away with it. That doesn't mean we should."

It is not the first time that the debate over how the United States should marshal its forces to win the hearts and minds of the world has raised difficult and potentially embarrassing questions at the Pentagon. A nonclandestine parallel effort at the State Department, which refers to its role as public diplomacy, has not met with so much resistance.

In February, Mr. Rumsfeld had to disband the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence, ending a short-lived plan to provide news items, and possibly false ones, to foreign journalists to influence public sentiment abroad. Senior Pentagon officials say Mr. Rumsfeld is deeply frustrated that the United States government has no coherent plan for molding public opinion worldwide in favor of America in its global campaign against terrorism and militancy.

Many administration officials agree that there is a role for the military in carrying out what it calls information operations against adversaries, especially before and during war, as well as routine public relations work in friendly nations like Colombia, the Philippines or Bosnia, whose governments have welcomed American troops.

In hostile countries like Iraq, such missions are permitted under policy and typically would include broadcasting from airborne radio stations or dropping leaflets like those the military has printed to undermine morale among Iraqi soldiers. In future wars, they might include technical attacks to disable computer networks, both military and civilian.

But the idea of ordering the military to take psychological aim at allies has divided the Pentagon — with civilians and uniformed officers on both sides of the debate.

Some are troubled by suggestions that the military might pay journalists to write stories favorable to American policies or hire outside contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of American policies.

The current battlefield for these issues involves amendments to a classified Department of Defense directive, titled "3600.1: Information Operations," which would enshrine an overarching Pentagon policy for years to come.

Current policy holds that aggressive information tactics are "to affect adversary decision makers" — not those of friendly or even neutral nations. But proposed revisions to the directive, as quoted by senior officials, would not make adversaries the only targets for carrying out military information operations — abbreviated as "I.O." in the document, which is written in the dense jargon typical of military doctrine.

"In peacetime, I.O. supports national objectives primarily by influencing foreign perceptions and decision-making," the proposal states. "In crises short of hostilities, I.O. can be used as a flexible deterrent option to communicate national interest and demonstrate resolve. In conflict, I.O. can be applied to achieve physical and psychological results in support of military objectives."

Although the defense secretary is among those pushing to come up with a bolder strategy for getting out the American message, he has not yet decided whether the military should take on those responsibilities, the officials said.

There is little dispute over such battlefield tactics as destroying an enemy's radio and television stations. All is considered fair in that kind of war.

But several senior military officers, some of whom have recently left service, expressed dismay at the concept of assigning the military to wage covert propaganda campaigns in friendly or neutral countries. "Running ops against your allies doesn't work very well," Adm. Dennis C. Blair, a retired commander of American forces in the Pacific, advised Pentagon officials as they began re-examining the classified directive over the summer. "I've seen it tried a few times, and it generally is not very effective."

Those in favor of assigning the military an expanded role argue that no other department is stepping up to the task of countering propaganda from terrorists, who hold no taboo against deception.

They also contend that the Pentagon has the best technological tools for the job, especially in the areas of satellite communications and computer warfare, and that the American military has important interests to protect in some countries, including those where ties with the government are stronger than the affections of the population.

For example, as anti-American sentiment has risen this year in South Korea, intensified recently by the deaths of two schoolgirls who were crushed by an American armored vehicle, some Pentagon officials were prompted to consider ways of influencing Korean public opinion outside of traditional public affairs or community outreach programs, one military official said. No detailed plan has yet emerged.

Those who oppose the military's taking on the job of managing perceptions of America in allied states say it more naturally falls to diplomats and civilians, or even uniformed public affairs specialists. They say that secret operations, if deemed warranted by the president, should be carried out by American intelligence agencies.

In addition, they say, the Pentagon's job of explaining itself through public affairs officers could be tainted by any link to covert information missions. "These allied nations would absolutely object to having the American military attempt to secretly affect communications to their populations," said one State Department official with a long career in overseas public affairs.

Even so, this official conceded: "The State Department can't do it. We're not arranged to do it, and we don't have the money. And U.S.I.A. is broken." He was referring to the United States Information Agency, which was absorbed into the State Department.

One effort to reshape the nation's ability to get its message out was a proposal by Representative Henry J. Hyde, an Illinois Republican who is chairman of the House International Relations Committee. Mr. Hyde is pushing for $255 million to bolster the State Department's public diplomacy effort and reorganize international broadcasting activities.

"If we are to be successful in our broader foreign policy goals," Mr. Hyde said in a statement, "America's effort to engage the peoples of the world must assume a more prominent place in the planning and execution of our foreign policy."

Copyright The New York Times Company

[Stranger]

The Defense Department is considering issuing a secret directive to the American military to conduct covert operations aimed at influencing public opinion and policy makers in friendly and neutral countries, senior Pentagon and administration officials say.

Once again, this has been SOP for quite some time. There are only three allied nations that we claim we don't conduct such operations against, and on one occasion we got caught messing with one of those three as well. In case you are wondering, other nations do it to us as well. It is pretty much understood as the way the game is played in international espionge, for better or worse.

[BeiKongHui]

Obviously there has been no SOP.


Mr. Rumsfeld is deeply frustrated that the United States government has no coherent plan for molding public opinion worldwide in favor of America in its global campaign against terrorism and militancy.

Rumsfeld. Now there's a winner.:rolleyes:

[red5angel]

You guys have absolutely nothing to worry about, Sean Penn is in Iraq on a fact finding mission and he is going to get to the bottom of this!!

Keeerist, isnt this the guy who used to make a habit of punching poeple taking pistures of him? hehe, mabe its a secret government plan, Sean gets close then pretends Saddam said something to annoy him and strangles him to death!!!

[Stacey]

Gene, I hope you mean on the island of Fermosa watching the commies glow from a telescope.


China can no more annex Taiwan than America can Imperialize Iraq, or annex Hawaii.

ok, they can but they shouldn't

[Stranger]

Mr. Rumsfeld is deeply frustrated that the United States government has no coherent plan for molding public opinion worldwide in favor of America in its global campaign against terrorism and militancy.

Perhaps Rumsfeld does not perceive that this current administration and/or any other has had a plan that he, personally, would call "coherent". That doesn't change the fact that the US, our allies, and those not aligned with us have been doing what is proposed in that article for many decades. Pick any decade and there is an example of the US doing it. Pick any decade and you can find at least one incident of one of our allies getting caught doing it to us.

What one person calls "propaganda" another calls "image construction", "strategic framing", "caucusing", "marketting", etc. Granted, what some call "propaganda" others call "bold-faced lies". Besides, many nations have a "propaganda minister" on allied soil, they are called "ambassadors".

[kungfu cowboy]

If there is one 'nay' vote from any person, animal, insect, bacteria, or ectoparasite (yuck) then nuclear or any other form of war should not happen as it involves organisms who don't give a good gosh darn about the extremely immature goings on of these dunderheads, AND they really have no right to annoy any of the above with their presence, militarily or philosophically.

Everybody who is into any form of lunacy and murder should all go to a place tehy should create perhaps named 'Murder Island' where the only inhabitants are card carrying members who are really into all that stuff and are cool with it. Then they may happily annihilate each other as everybody involved has signed a permission slip. I am writing my congressman. And waiting for the aliens.

[Stranger]

The threat of US nuclear weapon use in a China v. Taiwan War, at least traditionally, has not been to nuke the mainland if they move on Taiwan. Communist China would have a real hard to impossible time launching a conventional attack by sea or air passed US Naval protection across the strait that could end in in the taking of the island. Communist China would not likely nuke Taiwan, as they want the land and to assimilate the people. The fear of the US has been that of the Communist Chinese attacking the US Naval Fleet with unconventional weapons to remove its protection. To address this fear we have threatened to respond with nukes if our fleet is attacked by unconventional weapons in international or Taiwanese national waters.

Gene's article is likely more current than the base of my information, so maybe things have changed.

[rogue]

Is Gene trying to make KFM into National Review with Qigong?