Senator Byrd Says Bush War Plans Are Coverup

Byrd was a member of the racist KKK.

No nazis on Indymedia!

Where are your link? I have found no data
supporting this statement.

He wasn't an outright nazi, just a sort of one.

My question is, why are US elites so closely repeating with Pakistan the cozy relationship they had with Iraq during the 1980s.
US elites are listing these reasons as are purpose for going to war with IRaq
--they might have a nuclear weapon soon
--they harbor terrorists
--the country is run by a crazy and sadistic dictator

Due to our bad relationship with Iran which stemmed from first our CIA overthrowing their more democratically elected leader in the 50s (the CIA did a lot of that around the world in the 50s and 60s) and instituting the shah of Iran, who was then overthrown in the late 70s, and right wing radicals (the CIA had killed or driven out all the left wing radicals earlier on so there was nowhere else to go) took a bunch of american hostages in 1979, US elites supported Iraq and gave them arms, gas for gassing his own people, satellite images and other intelligence for helping Hussein locate the kurds and iranians he wanted to gas, and so forth.

Now look at Pakistan.
---It's run by a crazy dictator Musharraf who has in the past supported right wing radicals and terrorist types
--They have nuclear weapons!
--There are a bunch of al Qaeda members there.

Yet because it's politically convenient, they are our ally and we're giving them a lot of money, essentially propping up the dictator. When is this going to turn sour.

He wasn't an outright nazi, just a sort of one.

My question is, why are US elites so closely repeating with Pakistan the cozy relationship they had with Iraq during the 1980s.
US elites are listing these reasons as are purpose for going to war with IRaq
--they might have a nuclear weapon soon
--they harbor terrorists
--the country is run by a crazy and sadistic dictator

Due to our bad relationship with Iran which stemmed from first our CIA overthrowing their more democratically elected leader in the 50s (the CIA did a lot of that around the world in the 50s and 60s) and instituting the shah of Iran, who was then overthrown in the late 70s, and right wing radicals (the CIA had killed or driven out all the left wing radicals earlier on so there was nowhere else to go) took a bunch of american hostages in 1979, US elites supported Iraq and gave them arms, gas for gassing his own people, satellite images and other intelligence for helping Hussein locate the kurds and iranians he wanted to gas, and so forth.

Now look at Pakistan.
---It's run by a crazy dictator Musharraf who has in the past supported right wing radicals and terrorist types
--They have nuclear weapons!
--There are a bunch of al Qaeda members there.

Yet because it's politically convenient, they are our ally and we're giving them a lot of money, essentially propping up the dictator. When is this going to turn sour.

The problem is that everyone over in the 'mid east' :
--might have a nuclear weapon soon
--harbor terrorists
--have a country is run by a crazy and sadistic dictator

This includes 'good guys', 'bad guys', Isreal, Palestine, etc. etc etc. and seems to cover the broadest definition possible of what the mid east includes.

Empirically, it seems the problem is not who the US or Russia or the Islamic Extremists or whomever supports -- its.... wll I don't know what the problem is but there sure is one.

Its a shame we can't just fence the place in and let them play with each other.

we can't fence them in. what would we put in our cars to drive to work?! fuel cells, electricity?

Who will design the robots? People who know nothing else than how to dance, eat, and fuck?

That we'll be deep into whatever the outcomes of the coming war and other wars and inevitable fascism are by then?

I guess everyone has always thought a bomb was going to go off and end everything, and it never has. Somehow, no matter how stratified the world is between people dying on the sidewalks outside Tiffany's to the billions that Cheney made off us, robots and computers will continue to advance, even if by a smaller and smaller group of people who are allowed to be educated.

Anyway, how could the matrix come about if tech isn't constantly advancing? My favorite movie. It seems so real already.

But isn't this supposed to be about Google and NORAD? Or am I on the wrong link . . .

2 Thes. 3:10

If any will not work, neither let him eat.

Luke 12:19-21

And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry. But God said unto him, thou foolish one, this night is thy soul required of thee, and the things which thou hast prepared, whose shall they be? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich towards God.

Even during the depression, all these elite conservatives had the attitude that the unemployment rate is equal to the laziness rate. They also have the attitude that the upper middle class is holding up the poor working class via their taxes and redistribution. They don't realize that all the world economies are pretty much centrally planned. Read Joseph Stiglitz's book (he was at the top of the World Bank) on how a few economists in Russia and the majority of the developing countries are able to essentially decide what the unemployment rate is going to be by controlling monetary policy and the interest rates, and enforcing harsh policies because they're scared that too high employment could let workers ask for higher wages and inflation (gasp) would occur. There is often a tremendous gap between the value of products and services that workers provide and the wages they are paid, and these things are measured by economists and are regularly published. It's not that difficult to figure out. Where do you think the money that constitutes this gap goes to?

>Read Joseph Stiglitz's book (he was at the top of the World Bank) on how a few economists in Russia and the majority of the developing countries are able to essentially decide what the unemployment rate is going to be by controlling monetary policy and the interest rates,...

In case there were a question, the World Bank doesn't set interest rates or monetary policy. The Central Banks do.

"Developing" countries don't have a lot of say so in determining monetary policy. "Developed" countries have more say so, i.e. USA, England, Germany, Japan. Russia doesn't have a lot of say so at all.

>...and enforcing harsh policies because they're scared that too high employment could let workers ask for higher wages and inflation (gasp) would occur.

The key is money must grow. Money must be happy. If low unemployment and high income is what money wants, that's what money gets. If high unemployment and low income is what money wants, that's what money gets. Money goes where money makes more money. Money doesn't care who's making what wage, as long as money grows.

Inflation is good for lower and middle income individuals. The problem with inflation is that money loses value. People with money don't get up every morning to lose money. If they can't make money, they cut off credit to those who need credit and place their money into less risky vinues. Money hid in a mattress by people who have money eventually hurts everyone.

>There is often a tremendous gap between the value of products and services that workers provide and the wages they are paid, and these things are measured by economists and are regularly published.

The rest of us just call it "gross profit". "Tremendous" is a subjective term.

>Where do you think the money that constitutes this gap goes to?

Let's see: Stockholders, taxes, phone bills, electric bills, other utility bills, upkeep of buildings and machinery, etc etc etc.

The left-over is called "net profit". Important to have a net profit. Causes investors to view your company in good light and they will buy stock in your company that you can use as working capital and hopefully make more money.

I am a veteran of the war in Vietnam. I am 100% diasabled due to wounds suffered in that deceitful and crminal war. We no longer have a universal draft, we have a volunteer professional army. Why? Because President Nixon attempted to reduce the growing anti-war sentiment in our great country by ending the draft. A great democracy ought not to have a professional army, but citizen soldiers, for what greater price can a family pay than to lose a son or daughter to war? Soon we will have a mercenary army, just as the British had their Hessians at Valley Forge. Only when a universal draft is reinstituted will we have a public who has a vested stake in wars whose rationale tis termed "pre-emptive." We are being led down a bloody lane for unclear reasons. Let us hope cooler heads shall prevail during the next few weeks and we come to the stark realization of the price of war, especially in the powder keg of the Middle East, may lead to much wider conflict than most of us alive today have ever witnessed. And this time all of the fighting may not be 'over there' as we will have lit the fuse to empower the most fanatical of the muslim fundamentalists to take control of the fragile dictatorships we have propped up for so long. Our history has not shown our national spirit to be aggressive towards those who dislike us. If it were, or if it will be, will China be the subject of our next pre-emptive war? I think not. Think, think and think again.

"oney hid in a mattress by people who have money eventually hurts everyone.

>There is often a tremendous gap between the value of products and services that workers provide and the wages they are paid, and these things are measured by economists and are regularly published.

The rest of us just call it "gross profit". "Tremendous" is a subjective term.

>Where do you think the money that constitutes this gap goes to?

Let's see: Stockholders, taxes, phone bills, electric bills, other utility bills, upkeep of buildings and machinery, etc etc etc."


OK, now put together these things that you have said with this: poor people spend ALL of their money, pretty much. They don't save. Workers live paycheque to paycheque, with little or no savings.

Those who collect the profits save huge amounts of money, which is not transacting. This money is just sitting there, doing nothing, effectively pulled out of the economy, because it is in the individual interest of these people to save it.

This money ought to be taxed and redistributed to lower incomes to spend and increase the flow of money and the number of overall transactions.

Poor people can save. I remember reading around 15 years ago about a black woman (husband died at a young age) that lived in the Mississippi delta who cleaned houses for a living all her life. Her 3 or 4 children all attended college and graduated. Upon dieing she had around $200K she had saved. If she can do it, anyone can. That's an inspiration to me. I salute her.

Wealthy people don't just leave their money in the bank. They invest it. That should be a lesson to all of us. You can't just make it on your salary alone. You also must have your savings working for you. Your money needs to be making money. So they got more to take chances with. That doesn't prevent you or me from doing what we can do.

What is it, something like the top 10% of all income earners pay 75% of the taxes. We want to help the poor, we need to tell these local municipalities to stop raising the sales tax. That's a tax on the poor. Get some of these government entitlement programs and toss them back to the private sector. I still believe Americans will care for their fellow man. And without beaucracy and red tape it can be done more efficiently. Look at what our country did as far as helping the victims of 9/11. Anytime there's a hurricane, tornado, mud slide, fires, etc. you always have many, many people who are willing to give what they have to help people in need. I believe community is alive and well in the hearts of many Americans. It's not all about money. It's about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's about loving your neighbor as yourself.

I certainly agree about the sales tax. Its definately a tax on lower incomes, mostly. Not only that but it is a tax which disrupts the transactions of money and must therefore cause untold damage to the economy.

>>Who will design the robots?

>Other robots.

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1029052,00.html

Will fact match fiction as scientists start work on thinking robot?
Alok Jha, science reporter, The Guardian (UK)
Monday August 25, 2003

Scientists have been given the biggest ever grant to build a "conscious robot". The work will not only bring the scores of intelligent, self-aware machines that populate science fiction a step closer, it could also provide valuable clues on how human consciousness develops.

"Consciousness is perhaps the last remaining mystery in understanding what it is to be human," said Owen Holland, who will lead the work at Essex University. "By attempting to build physical systems which can produce a form of artificial consciousness, we hope to learn more about the nature of consciousness."

To those outside the field, modern robotics may seem something of a damp squib. Robots might well have revolutionised manufacturing and taken over many of the mundane, repetitive tasks once carried out by people, but the mechanised arms and small talking dogs built today are a far cry from the sophistication of Douglas Adams' Marvin or Schwarzenegger's terminator.

The reason modern robots do not fire the imagination is that, at the moment, they are only capable of following instructions: they have no capability to "think" for themselves. This is where the £500,000 award to researchers from the universities of Essex and Bristol comes in.

Mr Holland's idea is that a conscious robot would have to build up internal models - one for the "self" of the robot and another for the world around it.

Humans do this kind of evaluating almost without thinking. In order to be able to plan realistically, for example, we need to know not only what our physical limitations are (what we could do) and what is the best choice if we consider our options (what we should do) but also what we are likely to choose (what we would do).

"My analogy is the recovering alcoholic who would like some cigarettes," said Mr Holland. "He can go to the bar next door or the tobacconist half a mile away. If he fools himself that he can just go into the bar and just buy the cigarettes, [he knows that] he will buy a drink. In order for him to plan successfully, he needs to know what he would do."

These models would be the basis from which the robot would build experience. By experimenting with how its own body reacts with the world around it, the robot will learn what is beneficial to it and what is not.

But does working out how to adapt to its environment actually make the robot conscious? Here the robotics researchers enter thorny philosophical territory - what exactly is consciousness?

In an attempt to cut through the multitude of conflicting ideas and give the discussion more scientific rigour Igor Aleksander, an emeritus professor of neural networks at Imperial College, recently described what he called "five major qualities" that are needed to form consciousness in living beings and, subsequently, in machines. True to scientific form, the idea is that people can study and experiment with the axioms and propose any necessary amendments.

The key to consciousness could lie in the robot's model of itself. "I came to the conclusion that the self model would have to encode not only the physical possibilities inherent in the body and its interactions in the world," said Mr Holland. "It would also have to include an evaluation of the significance of the various planned or modelled outcomes."

The researchers will build a robot which will be presented with a succession of increasingly complex environments. To start with, everything around it will be in fixed positions. Eventually, there will be moving elements and things which will respond to the robot's movements. "It will have to model and predict what they're going to do," said Mr Holland. "These things will have various values for the robot, some positive some negative."

In theory, the robot will have to construct models of itself and the world around it to survive. In this sense, survival means achieving whatever mission it has been set by the scientists, which may well be just to accumulate points.

Mr Holland will rely on clues from the robot's visual systems to search for signs of consciousness - in much the same way that the human consciousness is dependent on our visual systems.

Professor Tom Troscianko, an expert in the neuropsychology of primate vision, at the University of Bristol, will develop the parts of the robot's "brain" that will deal with vision. By looking at how the the robot is representing visual stimuli to itself and how it is using these to make its decisions, researchers hope to get some idea of what it is "thinking".

At one level, creating consciousness in a machine would simply make better robots. Instead of blindly following their programming, conscious robots would be better able to react dynamically to their environment, adjusting their behaviour on any information they could gather.

Conscious robots could be used for planetary exploration, for example. Complex engineering control systems usually need to keep track of their own performance; an intelligent robot would offer just this sort of reflexive capability.

On another level, researchers like Mr Aleksander believe that building a conscious machine will help us to better understand our own consciousness.

Mr Holland said he would be looking out for some unusual signs in his work. "Consciousness is actually very imperfect," he said. "The view we present to ourselves and the view of our own past is hugely distorted.

"If I find the system actually has the same faults as [our] consciousness then I think we might be able to say that its quite likely that human consciousness has its origins in a system of this type."

Aleksander's five axioms of consciousness

Axiom 1: a sense of place
We feel that we are at the centre of an "out there" world, and we have the ability to place ourselves in the world around us

Axiom 2: imagination
We can "see" things that we have experienced in the past, and we can also conjure up things we have never seen. Reading a novel can conjure up mental images of different worlds, for example

Axiom 3: directed attention
Our thoughts are not just passive reflections of what is happening in the world - we are able to focus our attention, and we are conscious only of that to which we attend

Axiom 4: planning
We have the ability to carry out "what if?" exercises. Scenarios of future events and actions can be mapped out in our minds even if we are just sitting still

Axiom 5: decision/emotion
Emotions guide us into recognising what is good for us and what is bad for us, and into acting accordingly

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K296263E5

ndian scientists claim to have invented a new robot which has the ability to improve couple's sex lives.

Dr CRJP Naidu, of the Centre for Artificial Intelligence & Robotics, says the robot can simulate body movements and he boasts of its "sexual prowess".

He told the Hindustan Times that the robot could be used to help couples with marriage problems.

Dr Naidu said: "One of the reasons for marital break-ups today is physical inadequacy. Couples are so stressed out that there's no time for foreplay, so essential to get the juices flowing. A smart machine can bridge that gap in no time."

The Advanced Step in Innovative Mobility robot (ASIMO) is being produced by Honda, and scientists are working to improve it further before it is marketed to "gadget loving" Indians.

Dr Prasada Raju of Department of Science and Technology, GOI, syas ASINO was initially designed "to perform unusual tasks beyond normal human capability".

But he added: "What we have actually achieved goes far beyond that. Saving young couples from breaking apart could be another un-looked for bonus."