Friday, December 31, 2010
“Both the internal and external factors are shaping up to be equally gruesome,” said Thanong.
He predicted the red shirts would continue to clash with the yellow shirts, he predicted a slowdown in growth, higher inflation, higher interest rates, and he predicted the West would struggle to fix its financial system.
“All in all, 2011 will be another year when we can’t stay still,” said Thanong. “If you think that we’ll be better off, then you are bound to be disappointed.”
After I finished reading his op-ed, my government “made” me believe that Thanong had read the article that I posted yesterday, in which I said, “This last year was awful. The next year is setting up to be even worse.” And my government “made” me believe Thanong wrote his op-ed based on what he read in my article.
As the year went by, I often thought about his op-ed. For most of the year, I thought his op-ed was pretty ironic. On the one hand, the year was truly awful. On the other hand, I thought Thailand was having a decent year. At least I thought that until about August.
“Last night was a night for banishing regrets,” said the Times. “Today is for wondering how to live without new ones, how to do right by ourselves and one another.”
The Times did not mention what its regrets were for 2010, but I believe the Times wrote this article because it regretted its participation in the “New Diplomacy,” which, of course, involved torturing people like me. This article made me quite upset. If the Times wanted to start over, I thought, the newspaper should start by telling the public the truth about what happened in 2010. I was just about to write a furious comment for the article when I noticed that there was no place to write a comment. In fact, as far as I can tell, this was the first Times article which lacked a comments section. Subsequently, I noticed that many of the articles posted by the Times (and other newspapers) did not have a place where readers could post a comment in response to the article.
Apparently, as part of this “starting over,” the first thing the Times did was to prevent the public from commenting on certain articles that might draw remarks from people like me. Apparently, in the New Year, newspapers decided to try to quash the “New Diplomacy” by not letting people post comments on their website. I am willing to bet that, in the comments section, as part of the “New Diplomacy,” there were many people like me who were busy trying to tell the public information that our government wants to keep secret. Far from encouraging such behavior, the Times, instead, decided to quash this behavior.
Trash till the end.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
“It was a welcome about-face, thinking the commander-in-chief had seemed ready for a war up until only days ago,” said the Korea Times.
The newspaper also bemoaned the events of the past month or so.
“Like a century ago, the Korean Peninsula has become an arena for a power contest for four surrounding powers,” said the Korea Times.”
I wrote the following to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Mr. Okumura.If I remember correctly, the end of December was a very painful time for me. In retrospect, my government was probably torturing me with the intent of forcing me to contact my parents for help, which I did on January 1.
‘Tis the season to stand up for human rights, apparently. In an article called, “Speech, Cranky and Free,” the New York Times applauded a recent court decision which upheld the right to express yourself freely. The Washington Post published an op-ed written by Carl Gershman called, “No holiday for victims of tyrannical world leaders.” In that article, Gershman implored America to not allow autocratic regimes to abuse their citizens during the holiday season.
I have yet to see either the New York Times or the Washington Post say that what the American government is doing to me is wrong and needs to be stopped. I am an American citizen who is being drugged by his government in an attempt to prevent me from learning the truth. Actually, my government may be drugging me for a whole host of reasons, but all those reasons are illegal and illegitimate. These past few years have at times been very painful for me. Recently, my government drugged me in an attempt to intimidate me.
What’s more, I believe strongly that both the New York Times and the Washington Post know about what is happening to me. And yet they remain silent. There is one more person whom I believe knows about what is happening to me. His name is Jun Okumura. He used to work for the Japanese bureaucracy. I want all of you to know that I personally hold you partially responsible for what has been happening to me.
I want all of you – meaning the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Mr. Okumura – to do three things. First, I want you to tell me what you know about what is happening to me. Second, I want you to tell whomever it is you’re in contact with about me that the current situation must end. My government must stop poisoning me and it must stop interfering with my thoughts. Finally, I want each of you to inform the public about what my government has done to me and I want you to say publicly that it is wrong and that the government must stop what it is doing.
I have posted on my blog a link to the files I have been working on over the past several years. These files contain a lot of information about what has happened to me. I assume most of you already have access to the files, but I posted them online just to make sure you do have access.
By the way, Merry Christmas and Happy New Years. This last year was awful. The next year is setting up to be even worse.
And my government probably “made” me post my files online so my parents could read them.
I tried to post this article in the comment section of GlobalTalk 21, but the website refused to accept my comment. If my memory is correct, this was the second time that website refused to accept a comment written by me. Since I couldn’t post the article on his website, I decided to email it to Mr. Okumura. In my email, I told him that his website wouldn’t accept my comment. This is what he wrote in response.
That's weird. Never saw that happen before. I haven't be back there for a while. I'll look into it tomorrow to see what's going on.Presumably, he wrote that "happy new year" line because he knew that I would soon contact my parents. However, based on how 2011 has gone so far, I was right. This year is worse than last year.
And I hope you have a happy new year.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
From what I’ve seen, the conspiracy theories on 9/11 have focused on either proving that the American government knew about the attack beforehand, or they argue that the American government actually carried out the attack. But I haven’t seen much on why America would want the 9/11 attack to occur.Josef Joffe delivered both of the speeches mentioned in this article at UC Berkeley. The videos of those speeches used to be available on the UC Berkeley website. In the summer of 2011, UC Berkeley decided to remove many of its old videos, including the videos of those two speeches. But before they did that, I managed to download a copy of those speeches and I posted them on Vimeo. The article above has links to the videos on Vimeo. The original article on Blogging for a New World Order still has the (now invalid) links to the videos on the UC Berkeley website.
Based on subsequent events, I think America allowed the 9/11 attack to occur for several reasons. It wanted to launch the war on terrorism. It wanted to use the attack to put pressure on Saudi Arabia to crack down on its charitable activities. It wanted to put Saudi Arabia on the defensive with respect to what America calls Wahhabism (Saudi Arabia calls it Salafism). It wanted to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan. But ironically, based on what America did and the way things turned out, I think America knew that its interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan would not go well. We may have wanted to use the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan as an argument against sending our troops into foreign countries. Though I doubt our government thought things would turn out as bad as they did.
Many, if not all, of these issues involve Europe. Europe, of course, hated George Bush. But when asked why, at least towards the start of the administration, many Europeans gave a lame answer, like saying that Bush wasn’t an intellectual and he didn’t seem very smart. That wasn’t why Europe didn’t like Bush. Europe didn’t want a global war on terrorism. They didn’t want a global war on terrorism because – aside from perhaps America – Europe is probably the biggest user of terrorism.
Many of the people who fought the Soviets, who fought in Tajikistan, Chechnya, and Bosnia moved to London after the fighting stopped. Some of them moved to Europe to avoid prosecution in their home countries. By the late 90s, Europe had become a center for radicalizing Muslims.
Al Qaeda had a significant presence in Germany. The CIA discovered this through its interrogations with Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who co-founded Al Qaeda along with Osama bin Laden. In the run-up to 9/11, the CIA tried very hard to get Europe to cooperate with its investigations into Al Qaeda, but it didn’t have much success. In fact, in the years before 9/11, the CIA and the European intelligence had a very strained relationship because the CIA did not get the cooperation it wanted.
In an interview with PBS, a former CIA agent, Michael Scheuer, recounted his troubles in dealing with European intelligence services. The pilots of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, as well as the pilot who crashed his plane in Pennsylvania, lived in Hamburg, Germany before the attack. When PBS asked Scheuer if it surprised him that the investigation into 9/11 led to Europe, he replied, “No, not really.”
“When I was chief from ‘96 to ‘99, we had a large number of leads with bin Laden-related people into Europe,” said Scheuer. “And we had a very difficult time, as one intelligence agency to another, convincing the Europeans that bin Laden and Al Qaeda were really a threat, even as, after the East Africa bombings in ‘98, most of the Europeans were not very eager to assist us in tracking down these leads. Probably the best of the European services were the Italians, but people like the Germans were very, very uninterested in helping.”
Given all the connections between Islamic terrorism and Europe, it is possible that Europe was responsible for 9/11. In fact, one European, Joseph Joffe, a German expert on international relations, practically admitted that Germany was responsible.
According to Joffe, Europe had a bunch of grievances against America in the period leading up to 9/11. He expounded on some of those grievances in a speech he gave a couple of months after 9/11 called, “Who's Afraid of Mr. Big?” How’s that for subtly?
“Since the demise of the Soviet Union, it is no longer so clear that the United States puts more resources into international institutions than it seeks to draw from them - just take America’s old penchant for free trade,” said Joffe. “That is certainly being diluted by preferences for managed trade, which is a euphemism for regulated trade. The most dramatic recent example is the punitive tariffs on steel imports, which have very little to do with free trade and more to do with currying favor with swing states in the next congressional election. But the list goes on. If it can't achieve consensus, the United States will act unilaterally, as it threatens to do right now in the case of Iraq. If Congress doesn't like certain UN policies, it will withhold membership dues. If the United States sees promise in Star Wars Mark II, it will withdraw unilaterally from existing arms control treaties. Now the risk of this is quite evident. As the United States diminishes its investment in global public goods, others will feel the sting of American power more strongly and the incentive to discipline Mr. Big will grow.”
Joffe claimed that European nations had already started to push back against America. He claimed that Europe had started what he called cultural balancing. By this, he meant that Europe had intentionally tried to denigrate American culture as a way to reduce American power.
Joffe admitted that Germany would only crack down on terrorists if they attacked Europe.
“I think some European governments went with some implicit bargaining process which said, ‘Look, if you leave us alone, we’ll leave you alone,’” said Joffe. “‘If you don't make us a target, we won't target you.’ Every once and a while some stupid German court insists upon having justice served and so they bring some Iranian operatives before the bar and actually pronounce them guilty and sentence them which then creates enormous diplomatic frictions between Bonn, Berlin, and Tehran. But basically the idea has been, ‘You leave us alone and we'll leave you alone.’ That made it quite easy for Mohamed Atta and his friends to live, work, study in Germany unobserved and unopposed.”
To me, that sounds like Joffe is telling America that Germany was responsible for the attack.
Later on in the speech, Joffe offered some advice for America.
“A truly great power must do more than merely deny others the reasoned opportunity for ganging up,” said Joffe. “It also has to provide essential services. Those who do for others engage in systemic supply side economics. They create a demand for their services which then translates into political profits also known as leadership. Power exacts responsibility and responsibility requires the transcendence of narrow and short term self interests. As long as the United States continues to provide such public goods envy and resentment will not escalate into fear and loathing that spawn hostile coalitions. The proper maxim for a number one that wants to remain number one is do good for others in order to do well for yourself. To endure in the 21st century, this hegemon must serve his own interests by serving those of others.”
In other words, do as we say and we won’t attack you. Apparently, we didn’t do what Europe wanted. The following year, on April 7, 2003, Josef Joffe gave another speech at UC Berkeley. The title of that speech was, “Alliance Lost: The U.S. and Europe in a Unipolar World.” Of course, the previous month, America invaded Iraq. That didn’t go over so well in Europe.
As the title of the speech implied, Joffe argued that the invasion of Iraq had broken the alliance between Europe and America. Joffe argued that the dissolution of the alliance was in many ways natural, given the alliance was made to contain the Soviet Union.
“Alliances die when they win,” said Joffe.
Joffe called March 5, 2003 a watershed moment in international relations. On that day, Germany, France, and Russia agreed to oppose the American invasion of Iraq. Joffe seemed pretty pissed off about the invasion of Iraq.
“The United States demonstrated a surfeit of autonomous power,” said Joffe.
Joffe then went on to explain why Europe sided with Iraq instead of America.
“Let's look at this from the point of view of the Europeans, from the point of view of the lesser powers,” said Joffe. “Of course they would want to play this game given that America’s might was no longer stalemated by the Soviet Union. And so the French, and the Germans, and the Chinese, and the Russians, acted as if they feared the hyperpower more than they feared Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. I think there’s a certain logic to what the Europeans did. It’s the logic of balance of power. Assume an American victory in Iraq that is not only swift but also sustainable, that will intimidate rather than inflame the other Arabs, that will relieve dependence on demanding clients such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Obviously such an outcome will install the United States as arbiter over the Middle East, over its oil and its politics. And that prospect can hardly enthuse the lesser players. For it would certify what is already the case de facto - the global primacy of the United States.”
He finished his speech by threatening America.
“Power shall be balanced,” said Joffe. “That is America’s great problem of grand strategy once this war is over and once the peace has to be conquered.”
Of course, Joffe was right. After we got rid of Saddam, the opposition in Iraq formed an insurgency against America. Given the above comments, it seems certain that Germany decided to aid that insurgency.
But as I said earlier, I think America wanted its interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq to not go so well. The Europeans have always wanted America to intervene in foreign countries. Europe wanted America to intervene in World War I and in World War II. Margaret Thatcher really, really wanted America to intervene in Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait. During the Clinton administration, Europe tried to us to intervene in Yugoslavia. The Europeans seem to want to fight certain dictators to the last American.
“Most Europeans agree that the central tragedy of their history in the early and mid-twentieth century was the reluctance of the United States to participate in Europe’s affairs,” said Paul Johnson, a British historian. “What they fear most is a return to American isolationism.”
Not surprisingly, this doesn’t sound so great to America. It kinds of makes you wonder, why does Europe want us intervening in all these places? These interventions are costly and weaken America. I’m sure the Europeans realize that. But beyond that Europe just wants America to do its dirty work for it.
Perhaps by intervening in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by fucking it up, America wanted to convince the world that an America that intervenes less would be better for the world.
And I failed to mention that, in one of his speeches, Joffe seemed to be making an excuse for why Germany refused to crack down on Iran. Joffe’s comments imply that Germany has some sort of power over Iran. Presumably, America had been asking Germany to do something about Iran and presumably Germany had been making excuses why they could not do that.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
In retrospect, Britain must have known what my government had in store for me for 2011. A long story short, my government would try to prevent other people from finding out about me. As for the people who did know about me, my government would try to prevent them from believing me. And Japan must have agreed to go along with this strategy. And that is why Britain decided to go ahead with the rail project.
Trash. Cowards. Idiots.1
1 I leave it to you to determine which label applies to which of the three countries involved.
As I said in my previous post, in 2010 I tried to get the truth out to the public. For the first part of the year, it seemed like Japan also wanted to get the truth out. During the Hatoyama administration, the government acknowledged the existence of several secret agreements relating to the return of Okinawa to Japan. Actually, much of the information had already been released to the public, but Japan hinted that it had more information and it looked like Japan might soon release that information. This sent the Western media in a tizzy and they frantically tried to convince Japan and me that telling the truth was not a good idea.
The New York Times led the charge in a series of articles which proclaimed the dangers of informing the public and letting the people talk to one another.
On February 2, Robert Wright argued that the Internet undermined democracy.
“The Web’s many ‘cocoons’ — ideologically homogenous blogs and Web sites — are in a sense interest groups; they’re clusters of people who share a political perspective and can convene only because of the nearly frictionless organizing technology that is the Internet,” said Wright. “Some aren’t themselves activist, but most provide a kind of sustenance to activists who carry their banner.”
This, apparently, is bad and undermines democracy.
“It’s no exaggeration to say that technology has subverted the original idea of America,” proclaimed Wright.
While Robert Wright wished that he could keep people in the dark by having them not talk to each other, David Brooks, another writer for the New York Times, had his own ideas on how to make sure the public remained stupid.
“Society is too transparent,” moaned Brooks. “Since Watergate, we have tried to make government as open as possible. But as William Galston of the Brookings Institution jokes, government should sometimes be shrouded for the same reason that middle-aged people should be clothed. This isn’t Galston’s point, but I’d observe that the more government has become transparent, the less people are inclined to trust it.”
Implicit in his statement is the idea that the American government has done things that the people would not approve of and therefore the government must keep people in the dark.
Anand Giridharadas, yet another writer for the New York Times, seemed to agree with Brooks.
“Do we really want the unvarnished truth?" asked Giridharadas.
Europe seemed to agree with America. Actually, it looked like Europe wanted to take things one step further. Apparently, it had dawned on the Europeans that the Internet was full of information and that such information was actually harmfully to them because that information incriminated them in a whole host of awful deeds. To deal with this, the Europeans wanted to add an automatic delete function to the Internet. You probably think I’m joking. I’m not joking. Viktor Mayer-Schonberger wanted to put expiration dates on files posted on the Internet. Throughout 2010, I kept expecting Joseph Joffe to try and delete every article he’s ever written and every video he’s ever been in. Remember that crap about learning from history? Just kidding!
Towards the end of the year, it appeared that America reached the same conclusion as the Europeans. The West had simply released too much information, much of which is now available on the Internet. America took a different approach from Europe though. Instead of an automatic delete function, America decided that it would try and convince the public that limiting freedom of expression was a good idea. To do this, America – and perhaps Europe - staged a series of political theater episodes which they used to argue that freedom of expression was dangerous.
The most infamous incident came when Terry Jones threatened to burn a Koran. His antics provoked a violent response from protestors in Afghanistan. Noting the violence, the media used this episode to warn of the dangers of freedom of expression.
In an article published in the Washington Post on September 14, Michael Gerson argued that the Terry Jones incident was a new phenomenon that could only take place in the Internet age.
“It is a horrifying wonder of the Internet age that a failed, half-crazed Florida pastor with a Facebook account can cause checkpoints to be thrown up on major roads in New Delhi, provoke violent demonstrations in Logar province south of Kabul, and be rewarded with the attention of America’s four-star commander in Afghanistan and the president of the United States,” said Gerson.
This comment just goes to show you how much Gerson fears the Internet. People burned books long before the Internet came around. I don’t believe for a second that Terry Jones threatened to burn the Korean of his own volition. I am willing to bet anything that somehow, someway, either Europe or America or both got Jones to do what he did. I am convinced that the episode was nothing more than political theater. It was a staged event created by the West and used by its media to convince the public that we really need to restrict freedom of expression.
Ayatollah Khamenei basically agreed with me. He believes the U.S. government orchestrated the burnings of the Koran. The only thing I would add is that Europe could have been behind the incident as well. After all, Terry Jones lived for 30 years in Germany. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Germany had its hooks in him. The fact that Ayatollah Khamenei accused America and not Europe – for me – is just one more indication that Europe really does control Iran. But that’s a different story.
Interestingly, the Japanese media also seemed to agree with my interpretation of the Terry Jones incident. I remember watching one of the news programs made by Tokyo Broadcasting Systems in which a Japanese reporter seemed to be asking an American why the American media seemed so intent on focusing on this incident and bringing it to the attention of the public. After all, without the mainstream media, would anyone have known about Terry Jones? The answer is no.
Joe Scarborough had his own take on the Terry Jones affair. At the time of the incident, Newt Gingrich was calling Obama a secular socialist and accused him of having a Kenyan, anti-colonial viewpoint. Scarborough argued that the language Gingrich was using was dangerous and he cited the Terry Jones incident as evidence.
“If Gen. David Petraeus is correct that the burning of a Koran by an obscure preacher could make our troops’ mission more dangerous, imagine the impact of a national figure like Gingrich drawing parallels between Islam and Nazism,” said Scarborough.
Basically, Scarborough seems to be saying that using provocative language leads to the death of U.S. soldiers. Again, he doesn’t come out and say it directly, but implicit in his statement is that freedom of expression can kill and is therefore problematic.
Another bit of political theater happened on October 6, when the Supreme Court held a hearing on whether or not it should be illegal to protest at military funerals. Again, I think the powers that be decided to stage this whole event. And again, I believe they staged this event to try and convince the public of the need to start placing more restrictions on freedom of speech.
Bob Schieffer, the moderator of Meet the Press, argued that protesting at military funerals should be illegal.
“If we can bar political parties from campaigning at polling places, surely there is a way to stop those who wish, for their own selfish purpose, to harass those who have given their children in the cause of freedom,” said Schieffer.
To sum up, in 2010, western governments and their media threatened to burn the Koran, they got a bunch of Afghans to do a bunch of violent things, and they got some people to protest at the funerals of American soldiers all in an effort to convince the public that freedom of expression was dangerous because it could lead to the public learning about all the awful things that they have done. It was just that kind of year.
By the way, if my writing for this blog post seems somewhat confusing, you can blame my government. It was drugging me while I wrote this. Three cheers for freedom of speech.
Monday, December 27, 2010
“For once-confident Japan, 2010 may well mark a symbolic milestone in its slide from economic giant to what experts see as its likely destiny: a second-tier power with some standout companies but limited global influence,” said the Associated Press.
We’ll see about that.
In INDB, I wrote the following in the notes for this article.
2010 was not a year to forget for Japan. Japan has made it to where it is now by not forgetting. 2010 was another watershed year for the world. I think 2010 laid plain what the true intentions of the various countries are. This is not something you want to forget.In retrospect, I believe that Japan wanted me to write that.
At the end of 2009, I remember reading a lot of stories written by pundits in America and Europe in which they complained about how awful 2009 was. I’m sure I’ll soon be reading stories from those very same pundits about how much worse 2010 was.I also posted a copy of this article on Global Talk 21 in the comments section. If I remember correctly, I posted this article in an effort to convince Japan not to bring the LDP back into power. My government “made” me believe that, unless I wrote this article, the DPJ would split and the LDP would come back. Now my government wants me to believe that had I not written this article, someone would have revealed the truth to the public at this point in time. This seems dubious to say the least.
In 2010, Japanese politics became slightly worse, though for the most part it remained the same. Japanese politics still seems focused on wasting everyone’s time. Only with the DPJ in charge, Japanese politics has lost its sense of humor and is now just painful to watch.
Next year could be even worse. At least the DPJ has tried to do a few things to boost domestic demand. Next year, the DPJ could split. We may have new elections. The LDP could return to power. Though that could inject some much needed humor into politics, I imagine a LDP administration would be more mercantilist. Given the option between the two parties, I’d guess I’d personally prefer mercantilist and humorless to really mercantilist and funny.
For those of you that don’t know who I am, I used to be a software engineer. I joined Lockheed Martin in 1999. I left the company in less than a year. In all likelihood, at some point during my time there, my government decided to use me for its own purposes without my consent. In the past couple of years, it has been administering drugs to me without my consent. It has also been using other methods to screw with my mind. Believe it or not, the government does now have ways to read people’s thoughts. It also has the ability to inject thoughts into a person’s mind. My government is doing both of these things to me. How they are doing this, I don’t know. But the fact that they can do this should make other countries very suspicious about sending their citizens abroad. It should also make you even more suspicious of the activities of foreign agents in your own country. In any event, there are several things I’ve learned throughout this experience.
It's good to be an Oriental or a white person. That’s the first thing I’ve learned. I happen to be a Japanese-American. Lucky me. On the other hand, it sucks to be an Oriental person who wants the truth to be known, especially when you live in a white country. That leads me to my second point.
Ideals are absolutely meaningless to every single person in power. That’s the second thing I’ve learned. Throughout this last year there has been so many opportunities to tell the truth and at every single opportunity everyone in power – in the media and in government – in every single country has chosen not to seize that opportunity. In America, we had a bunch of prominent journalists argue that the truth shouldn’t be told. On the other hand, we also had another bunch of prominent journalists say that the truth should be told but then those prominent journalists did absolutely nothing to actually reveal the truth. At least the journalists who said they didn’t want the truth revealed were honest.
At various points during this past year I tried to tell the truth as best I could. It didn’t seem to have much of an impact. Towards the end of the year, as I started to gather more information, my government started drugging me more and more. It became very hard to remember things. It even became difficult to read newspaper articles.
Throughout the year, I kept thinking to myself that there’s no way the government can keep this stuff hidden forever. In today’s world, anyone with access to the Internet can write an article and publish it on the web and then have a potential audience of 2 billion people. All it takes is for one person to tell the truth. What is the government doing to do, find everyone who knows the truth and start drugging them? There’s no way this could work. But apparently, my government thought this could work. With me, my government has managed to undermine what are supposed to be America’s three most important ideals – democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law – in one fell swoop.
The other day, one of Obama’s people claimed that Obama was acting in America’s interests. I’m not sure how you can make that argument. As far as I can tell, he’s just been doing more awful things that don’t work. But in doing those things he’s given other countries the ability to use the knowledge of those activities to extort America. Good job.
In fact, Obama seems to be covering his own ass and the ass of other people who don't deserve it. And he seems to be entangling a whole lot of other people in this process and hurting them too. Meanwhile, unemployment is high and little is getting done. But he extended the Bush tax cuts. Yippee. No one learns anything. The people are unaware of any crisis which might get them to change.
The people in power will stop at nothing to make sure the truth remains a secret. That’s the third thing I’ve learned. I get the feeling everyone is hoping that some government will just kill me. I also get the feeling that other governments know about me and therefore killing me would give the governments that didn’t kill me the ability to extort the government that did kill me. That may be why I’m still alive. The other reason why I’m not dead may be because my government wants to use me to extort other governments.
Despite the fact that the governments of the world have been able to keep a lid on things for roughly forever, I still believe that the truth will come out. But I can’t say when that will happen. That leads me to the fourth thing I’ve learned.
Until the truth is told, don’t give in to any unreasonable demands made by other countries under the threat of having the truth exposed. That’s the fourth thing I’ve learned. The government threatening you doesn’t want the truth known any more than you do. You need to call their bluff. The worst thing you could do is to capitulate to unreasonable demands and then have the truth revealed anyways. For Japan, unless it wants to start telling the truth (and it looks like it doesn’t), focusing on the economy might not be such a bad idea. Of course, if America or Europe starts making too much trouble remember that you can always do what they fear the most – you can tell the truth.
Oriental people need to stick together. That’s the fifth thing I’ve learned. There isn’t anything that America and Europe wouldn’t do to fuck up East Asia. The only way for East Asia to survive is for Japan and China to stick together. Japan has the technology and know-how. China has the scale and it has nuclear weapons, which are needed to deter military action.
If nothing else, the past couple of years have convinced me that a world with China at its center would be better than a world led by America or Europe. That’s the last thing I’ve learned.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Getting East Asians to attend American Universities has been something of an obsession for some of the leading universities in America, in particular Harvard University. Harvard has even held recruitment drives in China. In an article published on February 5, 2009, Robert Dujarric argued that Japan would be relegated to irrelevancy if more of its students don’t go to Harvard. It kind of makes you wonder why America is so desperate to get foreigners into its universities.I should point out that when I wrote this article, I did not know about the connections between the CIA and Harvard University (and so obviously, I did not know about the connections between the Unabomber and Harvard).
In fact, America and Europe have a long track record of doing really bad things to foreigners who go to their universities. Many of the world’s most violent and vicious people have gone to universities in the West.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks, went to college at the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. The CIA believes that the time he spent in America did turn him towards terrorism.
“KSM’s limited and negative experience in the United States - which included a brief jail stay because of unpaid bills - almost certainly helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist,” said the CIA. “He stated that his contact with Americans, while minimal, confirmed his view that the United States was a debauched and racist country.”
Sayyid Qutb, the man whose philosophy was adopted by Al Qaeda, went to Colorado State College for Education. After returning to Egypt, he wrote an article called, “The America that I Have Seen.” In the article, he criticized the sexuality and materialism of American society.
Nidal Ayyad, one of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, graduated from Rutgers University.
“Mr. Ayyad’s experience seems more typical of an immigrant’s version of the American dream: arriving in the United States, obtaining a solid college education, then landing a good job with one of the country's largest industrial concerns,” said the New York Times.
Aafia Siddiqui, another member of Al Qaeda whom the FBI put on its list of Most Wanted Terrorists, went to MIT.
Ziad Jarrah, the pilot of United Flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11, went to the University of Applied Science in Hamburg, Germany. Mohammed Atta, the pilot of American Flight 11 which hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center, went to the Technical University of Hamburg.
Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, got his degree in Electrical Engineering at the Swansea Institute in Wales.
The West has also radicalized Muslims who did not go to western universities, but simply moved to America or Europe in search of a better life.
Mohammed Salameh, another one of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, became radicalized after moving to America.
“He went to the United States to get a job and make money,” said Aysha Salameh, his mother. “He went to make something of himself, to speak English, to study, to have a future. And now they say that he did all this, that he did this bomb. No, no, no…”
Ahmed Ressam, the terrorist who tried to bomb LAX as part of the millennium attack plots, became radicalized while living in France.
“In France, he read books -- banned in Algeria -- about how military dictators ruined Algeria’s hopes of democracy after it gained independence from France,” said FRONTLINE. “On his return, his brother says, Ressam was very bitter about his country. He believed that the government was corrupt and began to take up the cause of militant Islamic rebels, to his father's dismay.”
The West does not limit its radicalization programs to Islamic terrorists. Their radicalization programs extend much further. They have radicalized some of the most vicious leaders the world has seen. Hassan al-Turabi, the leader of the National Islamic Front in Sudan, went to school at the University of London and the Sorbonne in France. Pol Pot, the leader of the Khmer Rouge, went to school in France.
Some of these leaders lived for a while in Europe before returning to the countries to take over. Ayatollah Khomeini lived in France before returning to Iran. Vladimir Lenin lived in Europe before returning to Russia.
Other nations know what Europe and America are doing. Chinese law prohibits Uyghurs from going overseas. China fears they may become radicalized if they do so.
The West doesn’t even limit its radicalization program to foreigners. Iris Chang was an American who went to Johns Hopkins University. During the Clinton administration, she wrote a book called the Rape of Nanking. That book helped stir up anti-Japanese sentiment in China. Needless to say, that didn’t make Japan happy. After the disastrous Clinton years, the Bush administration wanted to improve relations with Japan. But during that administration, Iris Chang was writing a book on the Bataan Death March. Had that book been published, I’m sure Japan would have become very angry. The book never got published. Iris Chang committed suicide in 2004. In her suicide note, she blamed the CIA for her death. I guess the CIA felt that, “We made you. We own you. We can take you out whenever we want.”
Is there any doubt why America wants to get more Japanese students to study at Harvard?
Friday, December 24, 2010
“I’m sure documents (related to the secret pact) are kept at the Finance Ministry,” said the former official.
In INDB, I wrote the following comment next to the story.
YAPPARI!!! THE FINANCE MINISTRY HAS THE DOCUMENTS!!! YOU CANNOT HIDE THEM FOREVER!!! OPEN PANDORA'S BOX!!!As far as I can tell, they haven’t released the documents. And so nothing changed. In 2011, things continued on the way they had in the past, meaning, that we killed a whole bunch of people yet again.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
“If the telegrams were incinerated in order to destroy evidence of the secret pact, it would be an outrageous act that could betray the public’s trust in the government,” said the Mainichi Shimbun.
The newspaper hinted that the contents of these documents are very important.
“It is hoped that the details of how Japan footed the expenses of the Okinawa reversion, which is shrouded in mystery, will be clarified in the process of disclosing these documents.”
In INDB, I wrote the following next to this story.
Don’t get all high and mighty with me. I am willing to bet anything that the Mainichi Trashbun knows damn well what is in those missing documents. Put up or shut up. OPEN PANDORA'S BOX!!!
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
On December 22, the Japanese government released documents which showed that America had tried to rig the 1968 election for the head of the government in Okinawa. America wanted the LDP candidate to win. However, despite our best efforts, the Socialist candidate won.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The newspaper also reported that Kyocero would expand its production of semiconductors and crystals in China.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Incidentally, my government has “told” me that the reason why Alston Chase believes so strongly that Harvard radicalized Kaczynski is because Chase himself participated in the study.
North Korea gave a lame, pathetic excuse for why they chose to sit on their hands. According to them, the artillery rounds that South Korea fired today landed further away from North Korea than the shells that were fired on November 23. And so no response was necessary.
And if you believe that excuse, I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
“It’s a new world now,” said the Associated Press. “He dealt.”
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Today, after 1:00 PM, South Korea would hold their live-fire drill near Yeonpyeong. Previously, South Korea was expected to start the drill between 11 AM and noon.
The drill would last less than two hours.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Was President Truman most responsible for the outbreak of the Cold War because, he was new and inexperienced?
Truman wasn't really responsible for any American policy. In a conversation with Marshall Shulman, Truman admitted that he was not qualified to be president.
"You know, there must be a thousand people in this town who can do the job better than I can," said Truman. "But, the job is mine to do, so I have to do the best I can."
The primary reason why we started the Cold War had nothing to do with inexperience. On the contrary, the primary reason why the Cold War erupted was because the West wanted to drive a wedge between Japan and China.
After World War II ended, for a for time, it appeared that America might have good relations with Russia, but the world didn't turn out that way. It didn't turn out that way because after World War II ended, East Asia started giving the West a dose of its own medicine. It started launching insurgencies in colonies throughout East Asia, in India, in Vietnam, in Burma, and in other places.
To deal with the threat posed by East Asia, the West decided to split Japan and China. It forced Japan to align itself with America and it forced China to align itself with Russia. Russia would lead the Communist world while America would lead the free world.
I imagine some of you must be skeptical. For evidence, you should read up on what happened during the late 60s and early 70s.
On March 10, 1968, Edwin Reischauer, the former U.S. ambassador to Japan, wrote an article in the New York Times called, "A Broad Look At Our Asian Policy."
In the article, he discussed the hijacking of the USS Pueblo.
"The Pueblo incident also has its own lesson," said Reischauer. "It shows once again that many Asians are not prepared to live by the rules of the game of international relations devised in the West. Even the Soviets have observed most of the rules and have tacitly developed new ones with us. The Chinese Communists and the North Koreans have repeatedly shown that they have only contempt for these Western rules.”
"While an unprotected American intelligence ship can safely operate 12 miles off a Soviet coast, just as their intelligence ships operate safely even closer to our ports and naval vessels, similar operations along the coasts of a country like North Korea can be undertaken only if we are prepared to provide strong defense support or run high risks," said Reischauer.
Implicit in his remarks is the assumption that Russia and America are cooperating with each other while China and North Korea are definitely not cooperating with us.
On August 17, 1971, Anatoly Dobrynin, the Soviet ambassador to the U.S., met with Henry Kissinger. The meeting took place right after the so called Nixon Shocks, which really "angered" Japan. In the meeting, Dobrynin noted that those events had strained relations between Japan and America. In response, Henry Kissinger said, "Well, maybe this gives you an opportunity." Implicit in Kissinger's statement was the idea that, with U.S.-Japan relations strained, perhaps Russia could use this time to build relations with Japan. Dobrynin had other thoughts.
"No, this gives China an opportunity," replied Dobrynin.
Then Dobrynin told Kissinger that the real danger to the world was a combination of China and Japan.
In 1972, when Japanese Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka normalized relations with China, Mao Zedong said the following.
"If Japan hadn’t invaded China, the Chinese Communist Party would not have been victorious," said Mao Zedong. "Moreover, we would never be meeting today. This is the dialectic of history."
Even after the Cold War ended, to this day, America and Europe have tried their best to keep China and Japan apart from one another. But it's not working. And the West knows it. And China and Japan know that the West knows it. That's one of the reasons why, if you look at the faces of Obama, Biden, or Hillary, they all seem scared and shell shocked. And here's one more reason why they're so scared, because everything the West has done will soon become public knowledge.
History ends here.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Apparently, the drill made North Korea furious. The KCNA said the North would “deal the second and third unpredictable self-defensive blow” if the South conducted the drill.
“It will be deadlier than what was made on Nov. 23 in terms of the power and range of the strike,” said one North Korean official.
One South Korean official implied that America really didn’t want South Korea to conduct the drill.
“Not only China and Russia but also U.S. experts are deeply concerned that this live-fire drill could cause a chain reaction from North Korea, which would be another bombardment,” said Cha Young, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea.
He may have been right, as U.S. military officials continued to cower before the incomprehensible might of the Stalinist regime.
“What you don’t want to have happen … is for us to lose control of the escalation,” said James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
It is not a coincidence that the Jasmine Revolution started in Tunisia a few days after Tunisia signed a development agreement with Japan. Europe needed to do something to overthrow the regime which had agreed to cooperate with Japan. So they started a revolution which would kill countless Muslims and destroy their economies.
Trash till the end.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
AAARRRGGGHHH!!! WORST CATCH PHRASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE!!! THIS WILL NOT STAND!!!Now that I’ve had some time to think it over, in retrospect, I think my reaction to this news was completely rational and appropriate.
The first answer I wrote was to the question, “What are the diplomatic tools that are available to US foreign policy & defense policy-makers.?”
This was my answer:
Richard Nixon used something called political theater. You often hear politicians use the term. You never hear them explain what that term means. I wrote a blog post about political theater a while back. Here it is...crap. I tried to paste it into this reply box and it didn't work. Here's a link the article:In retrospect, at this time, my government was turning me into a fan of Richard Nixon, probably because they wanted to make 2011 a repeat of his administration. At the time, Gideon Rose had just published a book called, “How Wars End: Why We Always Fight the Last Battle” and had been arguing that America should end the war in Afghanistan the same way it ended the war in Vietnam.
Perhaps Obama took his advice. In 1973, we had an oil shock due to the Yom Kippur War. In 2011, we had an oil shock due to the war in Libya. In both cases, Japan used the oil shock to move closer to China.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
While acknowledging that his tenure during the Clinton administration went well, Milbank seemed much less pleased about how Summers fared in the Obama administration.
“Summers peaked too soon,” said Milbank.
Apparently, President Obama isn’t the only one unhappy with Larry Summers.
This article is significant because I am one of those so-called super-empowered individuals. My government has been “telling” me a bunch of interesting things. I’m not sure which parts are true and which parts aren’t, but I have been writing them down and I’ve been posting the information online. Friedman says there are a group of us. I am only aware of myself and WikiLeaks. I don’t know of any others.
Friedman says America needs to find a way to deal with us. So far, my government has been drugging me into oblivion in an attempt to force me to bend to their will. I’m not sure they’re succeeding. And certainly, unless their goal is to make America go from a state of declinism to a state of crashism, they are failing miserably.
This article shows a couple of things. It shows that Friedman understands how valuable the truth is. It shows that Friedman understands that the vast majority of the public do not know the truth. It shows that Friedman understands that America has done a lot of awful things that must be kept secret, as the truth would substantially change the world. And it shows that Friedman has no interest in telling his readers what the truth is.
By the way, in INDB, in the notes for this article, I wrote the following.
FRIEDMAN STRIKES AGAIN!!! WAIT A MINUTE...YOU KNOW WHAT...I THINK I AGREE WITH FRIEDMAN!!! THE FRIEDMAN LED ORDER IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE NEW ORDER WITH CHINA!!! JUST THINK...IN THE ORDER OF FRIEDMAN AMERICA INVADES IRAQ. IT INVADES AFGHANISTAN. IT RADICALIZES MUSLIMS TO TURN THEM INTO TERRORISTS SO THAT PEOPLE WON'T LIKE MUSLIMS. IT DRUGS ME TO PREVENT ME FROM LEARNING THE TRUTH. FRANCE KILLS A MILLION PEOPLE IN RWANDA. BUT IN THE WORLD WITH CHINA...CERTAIN COUNTRIES BOYCOTT THE NOBEL PRIZE CEREMONY!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! THIS IS DISASTER!!! WHAT EVER SHALL WE DO WITHOUT A FULLY ATTENDED NOBEL PEACE PRIZE CEREMONY!!! THERE IS NO REASON TO GO ON!!! HEY FRIEDMAN!!! GUESS WHAT?!??!?!?!?! GET READY FOR AMERICA B!!!!Hehehe.
Best comment ever.
After I read this article, I thought, with all the chaos surrounding Japan, why would he visit Iwo Jima now? In retrospect, Japan sent Kan to Iwo Jima because they wanted something. They wanted me to write an article about the return of Iwo Jima to Japan. My government did not let me write that article now. But they would let me write that article a few months later, in February.
To this day, I don’t know whether things would have turned out differently had my government allowed me to write that article now.
In INDB, I wrote the following.
Just to repeat...doesn’t it seem like the West is missing out on a lot of opportunities while it’s busy fighting with East Asia?I assume that Japan wanted me to write that.
Monday, December 13, 2010
My government now “tells” me that they were angry because of what Japan would soon do (remember, governments often tell other governments what they will do before they do it).
Sunday, December 12, 2010
“All hands on deck as we work to reconcile our better angels with our fallen selves,” said Parker.
Parker hinted that WikiLeaks would soon be supplanted by something else. I believe she was referring to me.
“Assange is the king brat, but only du jour,” said Parker. “He will be displaced soon enough by more ambitious hacks whose delinquent and, worse, sinister inclinations are enabled by technology. Alas, we are at the mercy of giddy, power-hungry nerds operating beyond the burden of responsibility or accountability.”
Saturday, December 11, 2010
In INDB, I wrote the following.
JUST OUT OF CURIOUSITY…HAS SOUTH KOREA DECIDED TO HAND OVER YEONPYEONG TO NORTH KOREA?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!? WE CAN BY NO MEANS ALLOW KIM JONG-IL TO CALL FOR BRINKSMANSHIP DIPLOMACY AND WE CAN NEVER COMPROMISE ON THE ABDUCTION ISSUE!!!
Of course, when Europe saw Japan and Tunisia drawing closer to one another they became inconceivably enraged. They refused to allow this to happen. The idea of an African country becoming more prosperous, the idea of Japan gaining a foothold right next to their borders was too much for them to bear. So they decided to do something to thwart Japan and her plan to bring prosperity to Africa. That something would happen a few days later.
Friday, December 10, 2010
“[WikiLeaks] will leave behind no trace of understanding if it is assessed in isolation, rather than as part of a broader pattern,” he said. “WikiLeaks’ latest release demonstrates that the transformation of power by the ‘digital revolution’ could be as far-reaching as that brought about by the fifteenth-century printing revolution. In this game, where new players invite themselves, the edge goes to agility and innovation. All of this implies that connectedness will remain a double-edged sword – the leverage it provides being fraught with vulnerability. And that means that we can count on more surprises in store for states.”
The broader pattern is that states are using their citizens, such as me, to post secrets on the web. They do this in an attempt to scare other states into doing their bidding.
WikiLeaks would be perhaps the most transformative event in the history of man if the organization were able to tell the public the truth. Unfortunately, it seems neither willing nor able to do so.
As for a double-edged sword, I have a feeling that Buhler is again referring to me. While America may have tried to use me to pressure other states, other states can also use me to pressure America, especially if they know what America has been doing to me.
In his comments yesterday, Lee Myung-bak said the South Korean economy must grow more to prepare for reunification. When you combine this statement with the assertion that America has failed to mobilize the necessary policies for reunification, perhaps South Korea is telling us that we must do something to make their economy grow more before they will finally put an end to the North Korean regime.
The Korea Times said that our policy towards North Korea should be based on facts, not rumors.
“The administrations both in the U.S. and South Korea have failed in this thus far,” said the Korea Times.
The newspaper also criticized Lee for making a series of incorrect assumptions.
“Nothing is more dangerous than making important decisions based on wrong assumptions,” said the newspaper.
As for what those assumptions were, according to the newspaper, Lee Myung-bak assumed that if the people of the North knew how much better life would be in a reunified Korea, they would chose to get rid of the current, despotic regime. Lee believed that might soon happen, as many people in the North had begun to realize that the people living in the South enjoyed a much better life than they did. According to the Korea Times, this approach to reunification was similar to the approach Reagan used to trigger the collapse of the Soviet Union.
It’s hard to say why the Korea Times disagreed with this approach. Perhaps they didn’t like the “psychological warfare” aspect of the plan. Perhaps they didn’t want the truth revealed either, at least not if the truth included the part about how Japan has contributed to their rise. Perhaps they would rather have their fellow Koreans live in poverty than have the world know about the contributions Japan made to the rise of South Korea. If so, then Westerners are not the only ones who can be trash.
In INDB, I wrote the following.
YAPPARI!!! THE KOREA TIMES IS AN APPEASER!!! WE CAN BY NO MEANS ALLOW KIM JONG-IL TO CALL FOR BRINKSMANSHIP DIPLOMACY AND WE CAN NEVER COMPROMISE ON THE ABDUCTION ISSUE!!!
Thursday, December 9, 2010
The Chosun Ilbo never explains why China could not continue to shelter North Korea without damaging her own interests. Instead, the newspaper offered a phony example of how North Korea could hand over one of their nukes to a group of terrorists and somehow, that would hurt China. There is no reason why North Korea would want to hand over one of their nukes to a group of terrorists. That should not happen. And if it doesn’t happen, China’s interests will remain unaffected.
The real reason why China had to say something to North Korea had to do with something else. Of course, that something else was the truth. Were China to say nothing, the West would have revealed the truth about the history of China to the entire world, at least that was the threat. But really, the truth would not damage China’s interests. The interests of the Western elite, on the other hand, are another matter entirely.
“It appears China has opted for diplomacy rather than go head-on against the U.S. pressure,” said Kim Yong Hyun, a South Korean professor. “The meeting itself signals Kim’s willingness to listen to the outside world and refrain from further provocations.”
In any event, for his part, Mottaki said Iran was pleased to see Japan take a more active role in Asia. Interestingly, a few days later, Iran would get rid of Mottaki. My government has led me to believe that his removal was a sign that Iran, in fact, did not approve of what Japan was doing in Asia. And in particular, Iran disapproved of what I was doing, namely trying to discover the truth and relay that information to the public.
Boo hoo. Sniffle. Sniffle.
“Fellow soldiers, as chairman, I will completely crush the enemy with combined forces in coordination with the United States,” said General Han Min-koo.
According to McClatchy Newspapers, the younger generation in South Korea agreed with the military. They wanted their government to make the North pay for their transgressions.
“That attack (on Yeonpyeong) showed there is a fight between our two countries,” said one South Korean. “But we couldn’t fight back. We failed. At a certain point, if we’re being attacked, we have to hit back to defeat their will.”
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Look who’s bowing down before the incomparable might of North Korea.
Mullen also tried in vain to use the attack on Yeonpyeong to draw Japan closer to America and away from China. He demanded that Japan participate in the military exercises with America and South Korea. When talking about the military exercise, he said the following.
“It is my hope that, to the degree possible, these will include participation by your neighbors and partners, in particular the Japanese,” said Mullen.
And on the other hand, he tried to lump China in with North Korea, arguing that they were buddies. Therefore, China needed to do something to prevent North Korea from committing further provocations.
“China has unique influence,” said Mullen. “Therefore, they bear unique responsibility.”
Would history repeat itself? Would the attack on Yeonpyeong be a Korean War light?
By now Mullen should have realized that history does not repeat itself. Sometimes it doesn’t even rhyme.
I will bet you anything that the U.S. and European governments were responsible for these attacks. I will bet you anything that they will use these attacks to expand their authority in cyberspace, much to the detriment of people like me.
“Regrettably, China has only called on the parties concerned to remain calm and show restraint, refusing to condemn the North’s blatant act of aggression,” said the Korea Times. “Against this backdrop, South Korea, the U.S. and Japan are required to work out more concrete and bolder action to end the North’s hostility. The three nations must keep in mind that action speaks louder than words. They had better show what zero tolerance means.”
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
I often used the phrase “sounds good to me” in INDB to tag ideas that I agreed with. I must have written that phrase a zillion times in there.
Apparently, Robert Gates thought it would be funny to steal my catch phrase to show his approval for going after WikiLeaks.
Actually, Robert Gates got my catch phrase wrong. Though the AP headline says “sounds good to me,” if you listen to the actual interview, Robert Gates says, “Sounds like good news to me.”
I’m not sure why he chose to get my catchphrase wrong but the Associate Press chose to get it right.
Monday, December 6, 2010
The newspaper noted that North Korea does not allow its citizens to know the truth. As such, the North is “morbidly afraid” of overseas news. The newspaper said South Korea should engage in psychological warfare.
“Words must always be followed by action,” said the Chosun Ilbo. “Unless we show that we are willing to risk everything, we cannot hope for a better future.”
IS HE BEING SINCERE OR IS HE BEING SNEAKY LYING ********?!?!?!!? JULIAN ASSANGE!!! WE NEED YOU!!! LEAK SOME MORE CABLES DAMNIT!!!
1 Obviously, I edited the comment slightly, in order to avoid incurring the wrath of the Google censors.
JUST THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE MAKES ME LAUGH UNCONTROLLABLY!!!
In any event, as the title implies, Sheila Smith hoped the attack on Yeonpyeong would convince Japan to cooperate more fully in forming an Axis of Evil…uh, I mean…Tripartite Alliance between South Korea, Japan, and America.
Doesn’t she know that Japan does not want to miss the China bus?
“Japan cannot afford to ignore the fact that its future security will depend on decisions made now, and the right place to start is in a close and full dialogue with Washington and Seoul that produces a cohesive statement of common strategic intent,” said Smith.
Hmmm…how about a statement called “Welcome to the new era of East Asian unipolarity.”
Sunday, December 5, 2010
“If bipartisanship is going to work anywhere, it should begin with intelligence,” said Ignatius.
Ignatius referred to the intelligence community as “a sprawling, poorly managed archipelago of agencies that badly needs coherent guidance and review, as opposed to the usual finger-pointing and second-guessing.”
Ignatius said Congress had been kicking the can down the road for too long on this issue.
“For six years it has ignored the recommendation of the Sept. 11 commission to reorganize its broken system for supervising the intelligence community,” said Ignatius.
I believe Ignatius knows about what has been happening to me. And that is why he so desperately wants Congress to do something about the intelligence community. Too bad he hasn’t done anything substantial to help the process along – like telling the public about what the government has been doing to me.
DAME!!! DAME!!! DAME!!! THIS IS FURTHER PROOF THAT JAPAN IS RUN BY A BUNCH OF GREEDY PEOPLE IN TOKYO WHO HAVE NO CONCERN FOR ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES!!!Actually, in retrospect, the Finance Ministry probably made this move in response to a demand made by the U.S. government.
This will not stand.
“The frantic provocations ... are rapidly driving the situation on the Korean peninsula to an uncontrollable extreme phase,” said the KCNA.
“No one can predict to what extent the situation will deteriorate in the future.”
On the other side of the peninsula, the Korea Times said South Korea must prepare for the collapse of the “Kim regime.”
Saturday, December 4, 2010
1 During World War II, Germany, Japan, and Italy signed the Tripartite Pact, which created the Axis Powers.
Implicit in his statement is the idea that the U.S. government intentionally leaked its diplomatic cables to tell other world leaders what America really thought about them. Of course, there is only so much information a government can pass on to another government using this technique. After all, when our government uses this method, the entire world will know what is being said. If our government has a message that it wants to convey but doesn’t want to use its normal diplomatic channels for the reasons cited by Lieven and it doesn’t want the general public to know the contents of the message, our government could use people like me to publish the information online where only a relatively few number of people will see it. And it has.
“In Japan we have a strong sense of crisis over the North Korean artillery attack on the island of Yeonpyeong,” said Hirota. “It is an act that we in Japan we cannot tolerate ... For other countries of northeast Asia, including Japan, this act is seen as a large threat.”